Regional Solid Waste
Needs Assessment
______
DRAFT
June 2020
Greater Nashville Regional Council 220 Athens Way, Suite 200 | Nashville, Tennessee 37228 | Phone: (615) 862-8828 | Fax: (615) 862-8840 GNRC.org
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... iv Section 1. Demographics and Projections...... 1 1.1 Population ...... 1 1.2 Projections ...... 2 Section 2. Analysis of Economic Activity ...... 3 Key Economic Indicators ...... 3 Section 3. Solid Waste Stream Characterization ...... 9 Waste Streams ...... 9 Municipal Solid Waste...... 9 Construction and Demolition ...... 12 Recycling ...... 13 Section 4. Projections of Waste Generation ...... 16 Section 5. Solid Waste Collection System ...... 20 5.1 Solid Waste Life Cycle ...... 20 Collection ...... 20 Transportation ...... 21 Processing ...... 21 Disposal ...... 21 5.2 City and County Overviews ...... 22 5.3 Facilities ...... 36 Convenience Centers ...... 36 Class I Landfills ...... 36 Class III/IV Landfills...... 36 Section 6. Existing Capacity and Facilities ...... 38 6.1 Estimated Life of Facilities ...... 39 6.2 Regional Generators ...... 44 Municipal Solid Waste...... 44 Construction and Demolition Waste ...... 47 Section 7. Statement of District Goals ...... 51 Objectives of the State Plan ...... 51 Section 8. Capacity and Projected Demands ...... 57 8.1 Solid Waste Facility Capacity ...... 57 8.2 Solid Waste Facility Challenges ...... 58 Section 9. Shortfalls and Recommendations ...... 60 9.1 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan ...... 60 Challenges ...... 60 Recommendations ...... 61
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | ii
Section 10. Meeting the Statewide Goal ...... 63 10.1 Waste Reduction Trends ...... 63 10.2 Waste Reduction Considerations ...... 63 Appendix A...... 1
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | iii
Executive Summary
About the Greater Nashville Regional Council The Greater Nashville Regional Council (GNRC or Regional Council) is established by the TN General Assembly as an association of local governments empowered to convene local and state leaders for the purposes of planning and programming state and federal investments into a range of social services and public infrastructure. GNRC serves as the region’s federally required Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Area Agency on Aging and Disability (AAAD), and Economic Development District (EDD). GNRC is owned by and operated on behalf of its local government membership comprised county governments in the counties of Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, Montgomery, Robertson, Rutherford, Stewart, Sumner, Trousdale, Williamson, and Wilson, Tennessee, and all incorporated municipalities and metropolitan governments located within those counties.
About the Solid Waste Needs Assessment
GNRC is responsible for the development of a Solid Waste Needs Assessment for Middle Tennessee. The Solid Waste Management Act of 1991, requires Tennessee Development Districts to coordinate, conduct, and maintain assessments of solid waste needs for the purpose of planning. This Needs Assessment is revised every five years. At a minimum, the assessment must contain the following items: • Demographic information and projections; • Analysis of economic activity in the Region; • Characterization of the waste stream; • Projection of solid waste generation; • Evaluation of collection systems within the Region; • Current system analysis of waste streams, collection capability, disposal capability, costs, and revenues; • Description of waste reduction activities designed to attain the required 25 percent reduction in solid waste; • Any other information the Commissioner of the Department of Environment and Conservation deems relevant.
Limitations of Information and Extreme Event Impacts During normal circumstances, seasonal fluctuations and natural disasters create a surge of materials during the season or time of post-recovery. At the writing of this document, Middle Tennessee was amid tornado recovery when our country essentially shutdown to protect people from the spread of the COVID-19 virus. These events are unfolding now and are expected to affect delivery of many services as new ways of doing business are revealed, in addition to creating fluctuations in where waste is generated, how it is collected, and what the new waste flow will be in the future. Furthermore, fluctuations in data presented throughout this document indicate inconsistencies in data collection, material definitions, measurement from one year to the next, or a combination of these factors.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | iv
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | v
Section 1. Demographics and Projections
The following section presents an overview of the region through population changes and forecasts to provide context for the trends and effect on solid waste infrastructure needs over the coming years.
1.1 Population Middle Tennessee experienced an increase in the population of more than 20 percent between 2000 and 2010. During this time, Williamson County grew the most with a 45 percent increase in population, as Humphreys County population rose by 3 percent. While the region’s population continued to increase following 2010, some of the most rural areas in Houston, Humphreys, Stewart and Trousdale counties experienced negative growth. Figure 1.1 – Population 2000-2017
Figure 1.2 - Population (2000-2017)
County 2000 2010 2017 % change % change % change 2000-2010 2010-2017 2000-2017 Cheatham 35,912 39,105 39,713 9% 2% 11% Davidson 569,891 626,681 678,322 10% 8% 19% Dickson 43,156 49,666 51,341 15% 3% 19% Houston 8,088 8,426 8,188 4% -3% 1% Humphreys 17,929 18,538 18,281 3% -1% 2% Montgomery 134,768 172,331 192,120 28% 11% 43% Robertson 54,433 66,283 68,575 22% 3% 26% Rutherford 182,023 262,604 298,456 44% 14% 64% Stewart 12,370 13,324 13,248 8% -1% 7% Sumner 130,449 160,645 175,730 23% 9% 35% Trousdale 7,259 7,870 8,773 8% 11% 21% Williamson 126,638 183,182 212,161 45% 16% 68% Wilson 88,809 113,993 128,874 28% 13% 45% TOTAL 1,411,725 1,722,648 1,893,782 22% 10% 34% Figure 1.1-1.2 Source: socialexplorer.com, 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses; 2017 ACS 5-year estimates GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 1
1.2 Projections The Greater Nashville Regional Council relies on population and employment forecasts provided by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. Those forecasts are based on national economic trends and provide detailed predictions for socioeconomic information at the county level. According to the forecast, more than 3 million people will call the area home by the year 2040. Figure 1.3 – Projected Population 2020-2045
Figure 1.4 - Projected Population (2020 - 2045)
County 2017 2020 2025 2035 2045 Cheatham 39,713 41,392 44,016 49,849 54,774 Davidson 678,322 699,326 726,822 798,722 848,072 Dickson 51,341 53,116 55,592 61,698 66,221 Houston 8,188 8,440 8,775 9,643 10,243 Humphreys 18,281 18,586 18,815 19,833 20,150 Montgomery 192,120 206,323 235,509 286,262 343,980 Robertson 68,575 72,071 78,093 90,357 101,888 Rutherford 298,456 321,842 371,902 455,888 555,516 Stewart 13,248 13,606 14,033 15,251 15,997 Sumner 175,730 186,143 205,432 242,234 279,686 Trousdale 8,773 8,963 9,200 9,860 10,267 Williamson 212,161 237,700 308,191 402,255 548,266 Wilson 128,874 140,101 165,563 206,139 257,285 TOTAL 1,893,782 2,007,609 2,241,943 2,647,991 3,112,345 Figure 1.3-1.4 Source: Woods & Poole Economics, based on 2017 ACS 5-year estimates
Population data can be used to determine historic volumes of solid waste, typically reported in pounds per person per day, in addition to serving as a tool for projecting future generation of waste volumes. Population fluctuations directly affect the volumes of solid waste generated in an area. Implications for solid waste planning range from the potential for changes in waste stream volume, where materials are generated, convenience center numbers and locations, transportation costs, and the need for infrastructure to
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 2
responsibly manage generated materials. The current Middle Tennessee solid waste system has proved sufficient, however, as the population grows over coming years the volume of waste is expected to stress the system.
Section 2. Analysis of Economic Activity
The following section highlights key economic indicators and the relationship to solid waste management in Middle Tennessee.
Key Economic Indicators Over recent years, the Nashville region has received national recognition for its economic development, culture, and prosperous economy. Middle Tennessee’s geographic location with access to major interstates, railroads, river, and air connections has been a major driver for economic activity. The state’s tax structure and lack of an income tax help offset these costs of living increases which keeps the region competitive and attractive to new economic development opportunities. The Nashville region’s economy continues to be very strong, but there is a greater need to promote more economic inclusion opportunities that promote equity.
Figure 2.1 - Projected Total Employment
2017 2020 2025 2035 2045 Cheatham 15,000 15,611 16,515 18,565 20,304 Davidson 638,807 663,947 703,343 794,182 864,682 Dickson 25,579 26,664 27,705 31,124 33,019 Houston 2,605 2,740 2,923 3,376 3,719 Humphreys 8,813 9,041 9,346 10,116 10,678 Montgomery 75,683 80,339 89,978 106,251 125,716 Robertson 34,770 36,515 39,609 45,567 51,705 Rutherford 171,497 181,083 200,261 234,105 272,170 Stewart 4,536 4,716 4,916 5,480 5,867 Sumner 85,329 90,000 97,704 113,304 128,640 Trousdale 2,862 2,986 3,238 3,674 4,177 Williamson 195,115 212,256 256,007 319,091 408,236 Wilson 67,948 72,483 82,886 99,247 120,231 Source: Projection horizon years are based on 2045 projections from Woods & Poole Economics
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 3
Figure 2.2 – Unemployment Rate 2009-2018
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Annual averages 2009-2017 The unemployment rate is a percentage of unemployed individuals compared to the number of people in the labor force. Economic conditions directly affect the unemployment rate, which often makes it a reactionary statistic, as opposed to a forecasted trend. A decrease in the unemployment rate would indicate more economic activity, which, in turn, would increase the amount of waste materials generated from all sectors of the economy.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 4
Figure 2.3 – 2018 Unemployment Rate by County
Source: 2018 ACS 5-year Estimates
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 5
Figure 2.4 – Projected Jobs by Sector
Figure 2.5 - Projected Employment
Figure 2.4-2.5 Source: 2017 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis value is base year for employment projections; the projection horizon years are based on 2045 projections sourced from Woods & Poole Economics.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 6
Figure 2.6 – Households 2000-2017
Source: socialexplorer.com, 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses, 2017 ACS 5-year estimates
Waste volumes increase and decrease in direct relation to population, unemployment, and changes in the number of households. Based on the number of households, a community can determine the capacity for population growth in any given area. As the number of households increase, so does the population, thus increasing waste generation. Daily operations may consider the growth for budget forecasting and service-related decision-making, but the construction debris must also be considered as the number of households and building permits increase.
Figure 2.7 – Per Capita Income 2008-2017
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Per capita personal income, 2017 release
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 7
Per capita income measures the average income earned, per person, in each area. Historically, Williamson County has had the highest per capita personal income in Middle Tennessee. For the 2008-2017 timeframe, Houston County had the lowest per capita personal income until 2016, when Trousdale County reportedly had a decrease of $5,785, that continued through 2017. Figure 2.8 – Projected Per Capita Income 2017-2045
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Per capita personal income, 2017 release
The projected per capita personal income figures continue to show Williamson County with the highest rate that increases from $95,339 in 2017 to an estimated $286,180 in 2045. As per capita income increases, so does consumer spending, thus creating added waste, if from no other material than packaging.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 8
Section 3. Solid Waste Stream Characterization
The following section provides an overview of the region’s waste streams, recycling streams, disposal options and management, and anticipated impacts to the waste streams over the coming years.
Waste Streams Waste streams are the flow of waste materials from point of generation to final disposal. Intervention of recycling and other methods of removing materials from the waste stream may reduce the amount of waste as it moves through its life cycle. Information presented in this section is based on EPA, ACS and data from TDEC, the Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Solid Waste Master Plan: Achieving Zero Waste and regional data compiled by GNRC’s Research and Analytics Department.
Municipal Solid Waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) makes up most of the volume across Middle Tennessee, as is often true in many parts of the country. Regardless of the type of material, all must be managed systematically to protect public health, the environment, and quality of life. It is valuable to recognize that efforts to improve our materials management concepts are needed to maintain sanitation in our communities. The most common residential materials generated in most communities include: • Municipal Solid Waste – household garbage • Organics – brush, treated wastewater sludge, yard waste, food • Recyclables – plastics #1, plastics #2, plastics #3-7, glass, mixed paper and cardboard • Metals – aluminum, steel and tin • Construction and Demolition - materials left after demolition, renovation or remodeling and construction projects are completed (drywall, wood, brick, concrete, roofing, and similar) • BOPAE – batteries, oil (automotive and cooking), paint, antifreeze and electronics • Household Hazardous Waste - chemicals, cleaners, herbicides and pesticides • Problem Waste – non-hazardous material that requires special handling such as bulky items (furniture, mattresses), medications, textiles, tires, white goods (appliances)
Figure 3.1 - Waste Characterization
Source: Metro Nashville and Davidson County Solid Waste Master Plan: Achieving Zero Waste
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 9
Figure 3.2 – Annualized MSW Tonnage Generated by County
Source: TDEC Annual Progress Reports Analytics
Figure 3.2 shows the average amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in each of the 13 GNRC counties for the past three years. The more populous areas show higher volumes of waste generated, which is consistent with the continued increase in population. Davidson and Rutherford counties are the two largest counties in the district, and as the distance gets further away from these more urban areas, the waste generation decreases, true to the less populated areas.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 10
Figure 3.3 - Class I Landfills MSW Tonnage Generated by County (tons)
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cheatham 23,672.00 21,723.00 16,552.16 17,962.93 14,508.34 Davidson 725,870.00 757,332.34 885,047.22 862,641.49 968,746.63 Dickson 69,126.00 39,463.00 42,041.00 60,659.27 62,351.57 Houston 3,983.00 8,728.06 5,711.91 6,197.88 6,756.86 Humphreys 17,538.00 11,999.64 18,578.67 20,945.83 19,862.24 Montgomery 163,793.00 184,982.12 171,593.78 126,772.78 106,073.30 Robertson 40,566.00 53,367.89 51,721.09 62,795.51 64,646.71 Rutherford 317,491.00 77,343.03 331,231.80 350,027.12 429,322.84 Stewart 8,485.00 9,397.57 8,724.74 6,858.56 19,801.21 Sumner 16,500.00 152,907.72 157,071.80 183,108.34 192,190.33 Trousdale 5,230.00 4,029.24 4,042.12 3,890.84 4,098.81 Williamson 191,694.00 208,750.89 215,187.28 216,395.49 217,342.04 Wilson 98,932.00 56,221.52 98,302.99 109,378.69 108,720.64 TOTAL 1,682,880.00 1,586.246.02 2,005,806.56 2,027,634.73 2,214,421.52 Source: TDEC Annual Progress Reports Analytics Figure 3.3 presents the fluctuation in volumes of municipal solid waste (MSW) by county between 2014 and 2018. The overall volume of MSW increases from 2016 until 2018, which is consistent with the continued increase in the population. The inconsistencies of this data can be explained as mobility of residents throughout the district, a need for more consistent reporting, or a combination of both. Based on the average 4.82 pounds generated per person per day, the amount of MSW expected to originate within Middle Tennessee would increase to 1,770.25 pounds per person per year, or just under one ton of waste generated from each person. This can be evaluated using forecasted population, however, most recent tornadoes and the response from efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic have shown how unexpected events can drastically affect the amount of residential waste generated in affected areas.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 11
Construction and Demolition Construction and demolition (C&D) materials are not typically generated from residential customers. Figure 3.4 represents the average amount of C&D materials generated in each of the 13 counties, in the GNRC district, for the past three years. As expected, the increase in population, and the increase in MSW generated, are further supported with the increased amount of C&D materials generated from construction of housing units and businesses in the most populated areas. In some of the more populous counties, the annualized tonnage decreased during this time, further indicating these landfills are reaching capacity as the supply of materials with a demand for disposal continues to increase, thus displacing these volumes to other sites capable of handling the volume. Figure 3.4 - Annualized C&D Tonnage Generated by County
Source: TDEC Annual Progress Report Analytics
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 12
Figure 3.5 - Class III/IV Landfills C&D Tonnage Generated by County (tons)
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cheatham - - - 17,754.25 29,760.50 Davidson 253,928.00 279,301.00 350,175.00 405,456.27 359,583.78 Dickson 6,764.00 4,033.79 6,551.00 7,270.97 7,194.17 Houston - - 27.50 18.00 53.00 Humphreys 1,757.00 2,286.73 2,983.25 3,709.41 2,898.43 Montgomery 48,977.00 47,979.51 60,500.63 54,851.37 21,938.23 Robertson 9,838.00 8,099.70 6,498.94 7,905.55 11,402.50 Rutherford 18,477.00 21,807.18 75,210.58 33,983.27 15,727.38 Stewart 3,853.00 9,784.50 5,094.50 3,407.00 7,572.50 Sumner 16,500.00 19,917.50 21,425.19 30,308.79 33,327.85 Trousdale 785.00 - 1,380.85 1,438.56 - Williamson 61,052.00 69,304.74 90,243.30 96,029.62 110,796.04 Wilson 34,836.00 36,407.00 34,398.81 42,607.00 32,497.96 TOTAL 456,767.00 498,921.65 654,489.55 704,740.06 632,752.34 Source: TDEC Annual Progress Report Analytics
Figure 3.5 identifies the volume of C&D materials landfilled in each county in the GNRC district. Some data is missing for specific counties which might indicate these materials were included in the Class I landfill volumes, whether in practice or inconsistent reporting. It is important to note, that regardless of the expected increase in population these numbers are expected to decrease. Volumes in Class I MSW landfills will increase, not only because of increased population, but the lack of availability for Class III/IV landfill space. As county-owned Class III/IV landfills reach capacity, the reaction to this situation is not to permit new facilities, but to mix C&D materials with MSW and send all materials, together, to a Class I site for ease in processing and maintaining operating efficiencies. Tip fees at Middle Tennessee transfer stations and landfills continue to be low enough that mixing these materials together is cheaper than processing the C&D for recycling, and more responsible end-use. A focus with infrastructure for recycling C&D materials would greatly benefit all of Middle Tennessee. Several states already use shingles and rubber from tires in rubberized asphalt, as well as pulverized glass in the base for sidewalks and roadways. Developing these as alternatives, in Tennessee, would allow these materials to be diverted from landfills and recycled for end-use in ongoing transportation projects.
Recycling The recyclable stream changes depending on where local community residents reside, and part of the challenge for local governments is the volatility of recyclable markets. As the world grew to encompass a global economy, China and other international markets started buying recyclable, recovered materials from the United States. In recent years, headlines across the country’s news outlets have put the spotlight on the state of recycling, and Middle Tennessee has not been immune to those same trends. Between 2006 and 2010 China recognized the quality of imported recyclable materials was declining. Scrap processors are now required to possess individual licenses that allow them to handle imported recyclables and commit to following proper importing procedures. The country passed import regulations during this time, but those regulations were not enforced until November 2015, in an effort referred to as “Green Fence”. This was the first sign the high demand for United States recyclable materials might shift. In early 2017, National Sword was announced. This was the Chinese government’s effort to stop organizations from using illegal permits to smuggle recyclable materials into the country. This effort gained attention around the world because it focused on importer practices and not just the quality of materials once they were delivered.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 13
Figure 3.6 - 13-County GNRC Region: Recycling Trends (tons)
Material 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Metal 327,161.20 319,783.83 314,611.18 497,092.34 852,021.24 Paper 82,573.60 112,263.41 129,158.57 152,613.16 186,776.65 Plastic 14,610.30 23,424.43 6,626.05 7,595.44 9,896.03 Glass 29,653.10 39,908.42 23,015.00 7,805.73 7,549.97 Other Recyclables 25,884.20 22,639.32 26,705.74 27,753.38 88,425.22 C & D Debris 10,113.60 12,342.34 3,093.17 6,848.60 53,317.10 Batteries 1,660.20 1,802.67 2,881.34 2,251.70 2,341.58 Automotive Fluid 2,249.90 3,924.91 3,064.79 5,685.98 18,745.46 Scrap Tires 12,513.50 16,422.03 18,656.63 18,114.95 23,694.22 Miscellaneous 82,245.30 123,515.63 100,390.63 145,273.41 - TOTAL 588,664.90 676,026.99 628,203.10 871,034.69 1,283,046.15 Source: TDEC Trend Reports APR Material Trend Analysis
Figure 3.7 - 13-County GNRC Region: Waste Diversion Trends (tons)
Material 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Organics 10,406.70 8,023.15 21,751.92 21,264.33 166,712.92 Mulch 150,304.00 140,276.28 144,083.90 129,370.43 - Bio-Solids 1,597.50 2,060.04 17,325.88 17,967.78 33,670.75 HHW - .48 33.26 38.48 40.19 Industrial 89,794.00 48,172.46 7,910.90 8,738.00 21,335.10 Byproducts Alternate Daily 2,904.10 13,506.40 6,504.70 3,533.80 7,635.20 Cover C&D Debris 118.00 125.00 290.72 10.01 53,317.10 TOTAL 255,124.30 212,163.81 197,901.28 180,922.83 282,711.26 Source: TDEC Trend Reports APR Material Trend Analysis
As recycling markets changed, the volumes of specific materials followed the same pattern. When assessing the data in Figures 3.6 and 3.7, it is important to consider the properties of the specific material. For instance, the weight of materials in tons is a common measure, however, the volume of plastic needed to weigh one ton is a very different volume than glass. Based on potential use, each material must be segregated to gain the highest value and maintain cleanliness from the point of generation to the final processing site. This is the fundamental challenge with maintaining convenient collection methods, increasing weight diverted from landfills, and the balance for quality materials that are not contaminated. As part of the Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Solid Waste Master Plan: Achieving Zero Waste, CDM Smith conducted a waste and recycling materials characterization study, in 2018. The study produced results for total composition of materials landfilled and recycled, comparisons of residential and commercial materials, and accounted for seasonal fluctuations. As shown in Figure 3.1, organics and paper made up 55 percent of the residential materials landfilled. Increased composting efforts could capture organics, paper, and processed bio- solids for diversion from landfills. Currently, there is only one active composting permit located within the GNRC district; The Compost Company, LLC, located in Cheatham County. There are 23 active processing permits in the GNRC district. These permits are primarily located in Davidson, Montgomery, and Rutherford counties and are associated with processing different waste streams. The primary material recovery facilities (MRFs), in the district, that process residential recyclables, are the privately-owned facilities in Davidson County, and the Williamson County, county-owned location with a third-party operator. South GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 14
of the GNRC area, Marshall County, owns and operates a facility that processes materials from the City of Franklin, and the City of Spring Hill. This operation was recently expanded, but efficiencies are dependent upon the primary staff being provided through local inmates. Additional funding for regular staff is needed to improve the effectiveness of this facility being a long-term, dependable solution for GNRC residential recyclables processing. Many changes have taken place in recycling operations, but the quality of the processed materials is what drives the demand for the supply of US recyclables. If recyclable materials within the stream are of a quality that can be recycled into feedstock for manufacturing, the waste stream loop is closed as the materials are recycled into new things and the life cycle of that waste is prolonged, just in a different form. Solid waste materials have value, but they must be clean enough for use as feedstock for new outputs. Renewed focus on recycling can provide alternatives to landfilling the expected amount of waste generated in the coming years. Currently, recycling services are fractured because of the decline in marketability of the materials collected at the local level that resulted in the cancellation of services or the practice of taking recyclables to local landfills instead of processing facilities. Rarely do two cities or counties offer the same list of recyclable materials, sometimes the buyers are the same, but the revenues earned depend on the supply, demand, and quality. A collective effort of several jurisdictions to adopt a common short-list of materials to collect for recycling would benefit the overall system since education could be shared, the habits from one community to the next would overlap, and a simplified list of materials supports the importance of cleanliness to produce quality recyclables so they are more marketable. For recycling efforts to be successful, local end markets for recoverable materials must be created, and the commodities needed must be supplied in the state at which is acceptable to these buyers.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 15
Section 4. Projections of Waste Generation
The expected increase in population, in addition to the forecasted increase in per capita personal income, and the projected increase in households are all indicative of increased volumes of residential and construction debris throughout the district. Using the annual average of one ton per person per year, estimates an increase of approximately 234,000 tons of MSW generated in the district between 2020 and 2025. This total is more than the current average MSW generated in Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, Stewart, Robertson, and Trousdale counties combined. Additionally, as the amount of overall materials in the waste stream increases, so will the volumes of household hazardous wastes (HHW) and problem wastes.
Household Hazardous Waste Household hazardous waste (HHW) materials are identified as flammable, corrosive, reactive with air, water, or other chemicals, and are toxic or poisonous to living organisms. Examples of these materials include cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, fuels, poisons, and swimming pool chemicals. Most household hazardous waste (HHW) is collected through mobile events, in coordination with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and third-party contractors for proper handling and management. Currently, there are two HHW facilities permitted in Davidson County, but those sites are limited to use by Davidson County residents to help match volumes, to the costs associated with daily operations.
Problem Wastes Problem wastes are materials that require special handling because of the characteristics, quantity, or concentration, but are widely produced in households, in small volumes, and they are not held to the same standards for handling, storage, and transport of other larger volumes of hazardous wastes. Some of the most common household problem wastes are tires, bulky wastes, medical wastes, white goods, electronics, and unused pharmaceuticals/medications. To control costs associated with mobile HHW collection events, the acceptance of some universal waste streams was discontinued, thus leaving one-day drop-off services for materials with HHW characteristics. Therefore, batteries, oil, paint, antifreeze, and electronics (BOPAE), or some mix of these materials are collected at local convenience centers, transfer stations, or landfill permitted facilities. These are waste streams that are not collected during HHW events. Overall, regardless of the volume, most counties report recycling each of these materials, which supports efforts to divert these problem wastes from landfills. The next three charts provide 5-year trends for recycled batteries, automotive fluids, and tires, listed by county. These are specific waste streams with generated volumes reported in the Annual Progress Report. Automotive or lead-acid, and rechargeable batteries contain heavy metals. At a volume produced by households these batteries can be managed as “universal waste” or a waste that needs to be handled in a special way; without requiring hazardous material handling guidelines.
In Tennessee, counties are expected to plan for providing at least one site to receive lead-acid batteries as a drop- off collection service for residents of their county.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 16
Figure 4.1 - Recycled Batteries by County (tons)
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cheatham 29.20 31.92 12.23 24.02 24.51 Davidson 680.20 766.17 836.84 1,074.84 1,351.70 Dickson 101.50 124.20 555.96 137.12 138.40 Houston - - - - - Humphreys 28.00 82.90 92.54 82.60 80.92 Montgomery 26.00 10.86 142.57 165.09 124.30 Robertson 4.50 8.28 72.74 71.39 124.66 Rutherford 403.80 550.17 310.89 438.39 283.42 Stewart - - 7.22 1.62 3.19 Sumner 265.50 88.67 778.93 110.99 101.84 Trousdale .70 - 1.65 - - Williamson 78.80 82.50 12.06 75.03 44.02 Wilson 42.00 57.00 57.71 70.61 64.62 TOTAL 1,660.20 1,802.67 2,881.34 2,251.70 2,341.58 Source: TDEC Annual Progress Report Material Trend Analysis
Common automotive fluids that are collected for recycling include motor oil and antifreeze. Commercial customers often manage large volumes of waste fluids as operating expenses for their business. Used motor oil, collected from households, can be combined in 250+ gallon tanks, and pumped or reused onsite for heating local government facilities. Tennessee counties are expected to ensure proper disposal of used automotive fluids is available within their community, either through local retailers or county facilities. Figure 4.2 - Recycled Automotive Fluids by County (tons)
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cheatham 50.80 45.55 23.29 26.31 23.41 Davidson 59.70 197.38 37.66 43.79 188.02 Dickson 5.10 538.71 32.89 590.96 46.23 Houston - - 2.96 66.54 - Humphreys 49.80 58.64 84.70 102.14 9,187.44 Montgomery 48.70 113.62 258.91 219.73 237.68 Robertson 9.80 17.07 57.63 96.64 170.33 Rutherford 1,813.80 2,662.11 2,312.64 3,932.15 8,627.49 Stewart - - 37.49 9.77 28.28 Sumner 76.10 75.30 91.10 338.70 93.02 Trousdale 3.50 4.25 8.67 77.40 7.88 Williamson 107.00 188.38 91.19 153.15 115.57 Wilson 25.60 23.90 25.66 28.70 20.12 TOTAL 2,249.90 3,924.91 3,064.79 5,685.98 18,745.47 Source: TDEC Trend Reports APR Material Trend Analysis
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 17
Scrap tires can become a health hazard when offensive insects and vermin reside in discarded tires, therefore, proper management of scrap tires further supports solid waste efforts in protecting public health. The Solid Waste Management Act of 1991 created the Tennessee Waste Tire Program which banned whole tires from being disposed of in landfills. Each county is required to have at least one temporary waste tire collection site for local tire dealers and residents. Figure 4.3 - Recycled Scrap Tires by County (tons)
County 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cheatham 104.30 78.67 51.24 97.79 78.15 Davidson 6,253.90 7,155.16 7,327.61 7,100.58 7,427.95 Dickson 542.10 2.68 990.45 111.14 1,196.36 Houston - - - - 180.03 Humphreys - - - - 177.43 Montgomery 1,598.40 1,225.53 1,180.14 1,008.03 1,081.29 Robertson 7.10 694.11 842.64 835.77 868.43 Rutherford 1,693.20 1,523.40 4,882.81 5,270.17 5,425.68 Stewart - - 229.42 111.49 167.86 Sumner 1,597.30 2,194.60 138.05 125.28 2,593.96 Trousdale 149.90 - - - 87.95 Williamson - 3,367.28 2,703.24 2,751.19 3,316.92 Wilson 567.30 180.60 311.03 703.51 1,092.21 TOTAL 12,513.50 16,422.03 18,656.63 18,114.95 23,694.22 Source: TDEC Trend Reports APR Material Trend Analysis
The information displayed in the prior figures show inconsistent trends, for the past five years, in any given county, for each of these recyclable materials. Reporting through the Annual Progress Reports (APRs) require consistent measurement, as well as consistent units of measure. Some of the fluctuation may be a result of the conversion from gallons or pounds to tons, the common unit of measure used in reporting. Additionally, at times when specific materials are in high demand, the price paid for these is enough to encourage individuals to deliver their own batteries, or automotive fluids for recycling and receive the rebate directly, as opposed to dropping them at convenience centers where the local government receives the rebate from the processor. Furthermore, when industrial, commercial, and institutional statistics are included in these totals, the accuracy is dependent upon the same organizations in each category consistently gathering the same information, each year, and reporting such to the author of the Annual Progress Report.
Electronics Electronics (e-wastes), include central processing units (CPUs), televisions, stereos, cellphones, laptop computers, and other similar electronic devices. Many e-waste items contain heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, and mercury. At the end of their useful life, collecting electronics for disassembly and recycling helps protect the environment from possible exposure to these heavy metals. Lack of e-waste processors has discouraged recycling of electronics, but continued efforts to work with local businesses to resolve the gap of missing processors is proving successful. Electronics Recycling Solutions (ERS), in Gallatin, is the newest electronics recycling company in the area. This is a small business focused on offering employment for adults with autism, who take pride in disassembling and sorting pieces of electronic devices. Thus far this has been a successful venture for adults with special needs, as well as local solid waste management efforts to add e-waste collection for recycling.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 18
Currently, Davidson and Williamson counites, Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority, and RASCO Authority collect e-waste for recycling. Cheatham County is planning to start collecting recyclable e-waste in 2020.
Unwanted Pharmaceuticals and Medications Unwanted pharmaceuticals and medications are common in many households. Often these medicines are either no longer needed for their intended purpose or have expired. Wastewater treatment plants are not designed to filter medications and unwanted pills are chemically active, event after the expiration date. Pharmaceutical takeback programs, or local drop-off boxes are the safest, most environmentally responsible method for disposal. TDEC recently announced that every county in the state now has at least one drop-off kiosk for collection of unwanted pharmaceuticals and medications.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 19
Section 5. Solid Waste Collection System
The following section provides a detailed description of the solid waste collection and recycling system in each county and municipality, including a narrative of the life cycle of solid waste.
5.1 Solid Waste Life Cycle The four functions of an integrated solid waste management system include all activities and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. The solid waste management cycle includes amongst other actions, collection, transport, processing, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation. It also encompasses the legal and regulatory framework that relates to waste management guidance on recycling and proper handling of waste materials. The tasks required for each phase of solid waste management present complex technical challenges and pose a wide variety of administrative, economic, and social problems that must be considered.
Collection
The first step in any materials management process is collection. Materials must be collected, in some manner, in an organized process to develop effective plans for managing solid waste. Collecting materials locally helps ensure proper handling and reduces the amount of illegal dumping and roadside litter.
Some communities provide convenience center drop-off solid waste services while others provide a variety of integrated curbside and drop-off services to meet the demand of their community. Often for-profit companies provide service options for residents when the local government does not. The two most common methods for solid waste collection are convenience centers or curbside service.
Collection functions depend on local transportation from the point of collection to a facility for processing or transfer, and in some cases direct hauling to landfills.
Curbside Collection Curbside collection is most common in urban areas where households are built closer together. The density of residential neighborhoods creates more opportunity for efficiencies of curbside collection to be the best choice for collecting waste materials.
Convenience Center A convenience center is a location used for temporary storage of solid waste and recyclables. These centers serve to provide drop-off services for individuals choosing to deliver their waste materials to a centralized convenience center instead of a disposal or processing facility. Tennessee counties are required to provide residential garbage collection services throughout their jurisdiction. The most common method of service delivery is drop-off service provided through a convenience center model.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 20
Transportation Transportation is a key component of any solid waste management system. Transport of materials from transfer stations to processing facilities, WTE facilities, and landfills all require transportation appropriate for the materials hauled. Commodities from processing facilities must be delivered to manufacturers who will use the separated recyclable materials to create new products, and customers using drop-off centers must have easy ingress and egress to safely and effectively use these locations as a collection point for household waste materials. Middle Tennessee’s interstate network is the most common mode of transportation for transferring materials throughout the Southeast. Tractor-trailer trucks are generally the type of vehicle used in transport. As Class I landfill space fills up, alternative transportation methods to more efficiently haul materials further distances must be considered. The mountainous topography of the state presents added challenges in planning for future transport of materials. Rail and waterway transportation alternatives are both available in the region, but not as readily used for transporting waste materials. Implementing these alternatives will take time, but may prove to be a more effective, economical solution in the future.
Processing Processing is the third phase of the waste management cycle and can include a variety of methods. Reduction and reuse are the most effective ways to protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and save money. Reducing the amount of waste generated results from simply not creating waste in the first place. The steps required to make new products and packaging, are often never considered when purchases are made at local retailers. Raw materials must be mined, the product must be fabricated, and transported from the manufacturer to a local outlet before the product reaches the shelf for consumers. Individuals can actively buy used goods, shop for products with less packaging, choose reusable over disposable items, maintain or repair existing goods, and rent or borrow items that are not used frequently. Recycling constitutes a method of waste reduction if the recovered materials are marketed for reprocessing. Most obvious, recycling reduces the amount of waste delivered to waste-to-energy facilities and landfills. Natural resources and energy are preserved as recyclable commodities are used in place of virgin materials during the manufacturing process. Recycling functions help create jobs in both recycling and manufacturing industries, locally, and supports our American manufacturing facilities.
Disposal Landfills are the most widely used method for disposing of solid waste. A common misconception is that landfills and dumps are the same. Landfills are well-engineered, managed facilities that are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulations. The RCRA Subtitle D outlines these federal regulations. State and local government entities are responsible for implementation of the regulations through the planning and managing of nonhazardous solid waste, including household waste. States often choose to regulate appropriate locations for landfills, overall design at specific landfill sites, acceptable operating procedures for landfills, required monitoring for landfill sites, and comprehensive instruction about how landfills must be closed and cared for at the end of the operating life cycle. Landfills represent the end of the life cycle for solid waste materials. A dump is an excavated piece of land used to store waste materials that is not regulated. Dumps were smaller than landfills and did not follow appropriate processes to protect the environment from the potentially hazardous materials that rots over time.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 21
5.2 City and County Overviews Depending on the type of decisions to be made, solid waste management could be directed from many different levels within local government. Most often daily work assignments, customer service, fleet management, and public education decisions start in the operations level of local government. Fees, local rulemaking, service levels, and elevated customer service requests are often decisions made at the level of local leadership or elected officials. As presented here, solid waste operations encompass specific functions with alternatives for resolving issues and guiding services. Regardless of what level of hierarchy makes decisions, each one leads to something that affects another function or decision within the waste flow process. Oftentimes solid waste services are overlooked because they operate in an organized, methodical manner that only draws attention when something is out of the ordinary or different than expected.
Cheatham County Cheatham County is adjacent to Robertson, Davidson, Williamson, Dickson, and Montgomery counties. The four municipalities within the county are Ashland City, the county seat, Kingston Springs, Pegram, and Pleasant View. The county covers a total area of 307 square miles which are bisected from northwest to southeast by the Cumberland River. There are five active convenience center permits, and one transfer station permit for county-owned facilities, located in Cheatham County. Cheatham County owns an approved Class I landfill permit, for a site that is not operational. Cheatham County is a one-county solid waste planning region. The Cheatham County Solid Waste Director reports directly to the County Mayor. The department structure includes truck drivers, convenience center attendants, and scale operators.
Figure 5.1 - Cheatham County Solid Waste Structure
Currently, the four incorporated municipalities in Cheatham County (Ashland City, Kingston Springs, Pegram and Pleasant View) do not provide curbside services. These municipalities should be monitored, as they grow, for consideration of curbside services to maintain efficiencies at the county-owned convenience centers. These services may be provided by the county and/or city but should not be discounted as more houses are constructed in the municipalities. Cheatham County has a unique section of the county, known as the “Old 8 District”. This portion of the county includes 62 households, on eight streets, that are surrounded by Dickson County on one side, with the Cumberland River on the other side. The last of the county’s unattended green boxes provided residential solid waste collection for this residential area. When unattended containers were discontinued, this part of the county was left without service. Convenience centers in Dickson County only serve residents of their own county, as do other counties in the district, which is common throughout the state. Cheatham County pays $720 per month, to a local private company,
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 22
for curbside services to these 62 households. This is the only portion of the county where residents are provided curbside service at the county’s expense. Until recently, Cheatham County waste was transported to Decatur County Landfill, by a private hauling contractor. Decatur County Landfill announced it would stop accepting waste and close with years of capacity remaining. The private hauling company found alternative disposal options and in early 2020, Cheatham County waste was sent to the Bi-County Landfill, in Woodlawn, for final disposal. Cheatham County recently started considering transport and disposal alternatives as the contract with their hauling company is nearing the end of its term.
Davidson County Davidson County is in the heart of Middle Tennessee, with Robertson County to the north, Sumner County to the northeast, Wilson County due east, Rutherford County is southeast, Williamson County to the south, and Cheatham County to the west. Based on population, this is the second largest county in the state. Nashville is the county seat, as well as the state capital. The City of Nashville and Davidson County merged in 1963 and became the “Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County”, or “Metro Nashville” for short. The U.S. Census Bureau indicates there is a total area of 526 miles within the county. Cities within Davidson County include Belle Meade, Berry Hill, Forest Hills, Nashville, Oak Hill, and Goodlettsville. There are 32 active solid waste permits in Davidson County. These permits are approved for convenience centers, processing facilities, transfer stations, and a Class III/IV landfill for construction and demolition materials. A mix of public and private owners and operators are responsible for providing the services associated with each facility. The processing permits include material recovery facilities, tire recyclers, metal recyclers, medical waste processors and other similar processing functions. Davidson County is a one-county solid waste planning region. Metro Nashville Davidson County solid waste functions are managed through the Public Works department. Metro Nashville solid waste management is the most diverse within the GNRC district. The metropolitan area is divided into two districts, Urban Services and General Services. Residents in both districts, as well as the City of Oak Hill, City of Goodlettsville, City of Berry Hill, City of Forest Hills, and City of Belle Meade are provided curbside collection for household waste. Figure 5.2 - Metro Nashville Solid Waste Structure
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 23
A mix of publicly owned and contracted resources provide residential services in the Urban Services District. Scheduled services occur once a week using fully and semi-automated collection trucks. In addition to household garbage, bulky items, white goods, and brush are also collected curbside in the Urban Services District. General Services District residents are served weekly curbside collection through an open market structure using fully automated, semi-automated, and manual trucks. Bulk waste, white goods, and brush are collected curbside, just as they are in the Urban Services District. Overall, throughout Metro Nashville, residential solid waste services are similar, but provided using a combination of various equipment. Residential curbside recycling services are also offered throughout the Urban and General Services Districts through a mix of public, publicly contracted, and privately contracted service providers. Materials from Metro Nashville are disposed of in most landfills throughout the state, however, the majority of the household waste from Davidson County is disposed of in the Middle Point Landfill, in Murfreesboro. The City of Belle Meade contracts with a private company to provide backdoor residential garbage and recycling collection services. Brush collection is included as a weekly service. Yard waste is contracted separately from solid waste services, and dumpsters located at City Hall accept items too large to fit in residential containers except for furniture, mattresses and special wastes that must be taken to Metro Nashville convenience centers. Service contracts are managed through the Mayor’s office. The City of Berry Hill contracts with a private company to provide backdoor, household waste and recycling services, to all single-family residences and duplexes each Wednesday. Residents are instructed to deliver yard waste and e- waste to local Metro Nashville convenience centers. Brush and bulk items are collected curbside when residents notify the local Public Works office they need collection service. Service contracts are managed through the Mayor’s office, with support from the Director of Grounds who reports directly to the City Mayor. The City of Forest Hills, in Nashville, is dependent upon County convenience centers for residential waste collection. There are private service providers available through an open market system that allow residents to pay for curbside collection of waste and recyclables. Curbside yard waste service is provided by a private contractor and those services are managed through the Mayor’s office. The City of Oak Hill provides weekly backdoor garbage collection services to city residents. Construction debris and bulk items are not included in this service. A contractor works directly with the Mayor’s office to provide monthly brush and yard waste collection for work performed by residents. The City of Goodlettsville is located across Davidson and Sumner county boundaries. Goodlettsville will be included as part of Davidson County since they are represented on the Metro Nashville Davidson County Regional Solid Waste Board. City resources provide weekly, residential, curbside collection of household garbage, brush, and bulk items. Recyclables are collected from curbside every other week. Electronics and metal, from residents, are collected for recycling at a local drop-off location. Household recyclables can be delivered to the Goodlettsville Convenience Drop-off and Recycling Center that is open two days each week. 5.3- City of Goodlettsville Solid Waste Structure
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 24
Dickson County Dickson County has a total area of 491 square miles, and Charlotte is the county seat. Built in 1835, Tennessee’s oldest courthouse in continuous use, is in Dickson County. On a map, Dickson County touches Montgomery, Cheatham, Williamson, Hickman, Humphreys, and Houston counties. Incorporated cities include: Burns, Charlotte, Dickson, Slayden, Vanleer, and White Bluff. Dickson County serves residents with solid waste and recyclables collection through ten convenience centers, located throughout the county. The county owns and operates a transfer station, a Class III landfill, and a central facility for handling recyclables. The transfer station is open for private service providers who pay a tip fee for use of the facility. The cities of Burns, Slayden, and Vanleer, depend on county convenience centers to provide residential waste collection services. Dickson County is a one-county solid waste planning region. Dickson County uses the local Dickson County Electric Company to bill monthly, for solid waste services. Additionally, the City of Dickson charges a separate monthly service fee that is included on utility bills. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount of waste pushed through the Dickson County transfer station more than doubled the historic volume. In normal conditions, the transfer station seems sufficient to manage waste volumes that would be delivered to this location. However, the added volume from clearing clutter activities proved the need to secure back-up options for processing and transporting waste to the Waste Management West Camden Landfill, in Benton County, where Dickson County waste disposal is contracted. Figure 5.4- Dickson County Solid Waste Structure
The City of Charlotte and the City of White Bluff both provide curbside collection services to city residents through a contract that is managed in their respective City Administration offices. The City of Dickson uses publicly owned resources to provide residential and some commercial solid waste collection within the city limits of Dickson. Commercial services are provided for small businesses that produce volumes of waste that fit in 96-gallon rollout containers. Bulk items are collected curbside for an additional service fee, or bulk items may be taken to Dickson County convenience centers for proper disposal. The City of Dickson uses the Dickson County transfer station and pays the standard tip fee, per ton, for volume delivered to this facility.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 25
Figure 5.5- City of Dickson Solid Waste Structure
Houston County Houston County’s county seat is Erin. The county has a total area of 207 square miles. Stewart, Montgomery, Dickson, Humphreys, and Benton counties are adjacent to Houston County. The two cities within the county are Erin and Tennessee Ridge. Houston County residents are provided solid waste collection services through one convenience center. The active transfer station permit is not supported by an open site for accepting additional waste from businesses or out-of-county residents, and the location is not easily accessible to accommodate additional traffic. Houston County is a one-county solid waste planning region. Houston County depends on Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority (Bi-County) for transporting roll-off boxes between the convenience center and the landfill. Additionally, Bi-County assists Houston County with roll-off container repairs, as there is no revenue in Houston County budgeted for roll-off container replacement. Currently, Houston County pays Bi-County $41 per ton which covers expenses for providing these services, including waste disposal. Figure 5.6 Houston County Solid Waste Structure
Humphreys County Humphreys County has a total area of 557 square miles and Waverly is the county seat. The county is surrounded by Houston, Dickson, Hickman, Perry, and Benton counties. Cities include McEwen, New Johnsonville, and Waverly. Humphreys County owns and operates seven convenience centers for residential solid waste services. Each site is equipped with roll-off boxes for separate collection of recyclable materials. The cities of McEwen and New Johnsonville are both dependent upon county resources for waste and recycling collection services. Recyclable materials are taken to the James Developmental Center, in Waverly, for processing in preparation to sell to buyers in recycling markets. The county also owns and operates a Class III landfill for construction materials. Humphreys County is a one-county solid waste planning region.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 26
Figure 5.7 - Humphreys County Solid Waste Structure
The City of Waverly provides residential and commercial curbside garbage collection services, using publicly owned resources. Weekly residential services include recycling collection, and commercial services are provided more frequently, as needed. Figure 5.8 - City of Waverly Solid Waste Structure
Montgomery County Montgomery County, located at the Kentucky state border, has a total area of 544 square miles. The county seat is Clarksville. Fort Campbell, home of the Army’s only Air Assault Division, the 101st Airborne, is between Clarksville and Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Tennessee counties, Robertson, Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, and Stewart are adjacent to Montgomery County, in addition to Christian County, and Todd County, in Kentucky. The City of Clarksville represents the only incorporated municipality within the county. Montgomery County is one of the two counties that created the Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority. Montgomery, Robertson, and Stewart counties make up a three-county solid waste planning region, led by the Bi- County Solid Waste Management Authority. Bi-County is an entity created by interlocal agreement between Montgomery and Stewart counties. Both counties, including the City of Clarksville, Cumberland City, and Dover, depend on Bi-County to manage solid waste services and other needs for their communities. The Authority is not directly affiliated with either of the county governments, but there are elected officials and appointed members from local communities, that sit on the Board of Directors for the Authority.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 27
Figure 5.9 - Bi-County Solid Waste Structure
Bi-County operates as an independent entity. In recent years, minimal tipping fees at a Waste Connections, privately-owned landfill, in Kentucky, have negatively affected the revenue at Bi-County. In addition, Waste Connections recently purchased locally owned Queen City Disposal, which solidified their presence in the Middle Tennessee solid waste market with a transfer station permit in Metro Nashville. As the volume of waste coming in to Bi-County continues to decline, so do revenues. The funds to cover ongoing operating costs, as well as long-term permitting, construction, equipment repairs and replacement, and tasks needed to meet TDEC compliance requirements are dependent upon revenues from landfill users who pay the Authority a tip fee. In order to continue providing services to Montgomery and Stewart counties, without increasing residential fees for services, revenues must increase. Additional revenue can be generated from either accepting certain volumes of materials from other areas or implement flow control to prevent local haulers from taking waste out of the Bi-County area and the state of Tennessee, or a combination of both options. Bi-County maintains and services ten convenience centers, one transfer station, one Class I MSW landfill, one Class III construction debris landfill, and one Class IV demolition landfill, in Montgomery County, and seven convenience centers in Stewart County. All centers accept residential waste and recyclables. Recyclables accepted at local centers include mixed metals, cardboard, office paper, plastics #1 and #2, and glass. Bi-County does host two mobile HHW events annually, and collect tires, used cooking oil, automotive fluids including used oil and antifreeze, batteries, and latex paint throughout the year. Bi-County does plan to continue accepting and responsibly recycling or disposing of these problem waste streams, independent of decisions to continue recycling other materials. A user fee of $5 per month is charged to households with electric utility accounts. As the population continues to increase in the Montgomery County area, so does the volume of waste delivered to local convenience centers, ultimately increasing costs associated with these services. This user fee is not enough to cover the expenses without supplemental revenue from private service providers, or legislation that requires specific entities to use the Bi- County facility.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 28
Robertson County Robertson County is on the central northern border of Tennessee, and touches Kentucky. The county seat is Springfield and the total area of the county covers 476 square miles. Robertson County is next to Sumner, Davidson, Cheatham, and Montgomery counties in Tennessee, and Logan, Simpson, and Todd counties, in Kentucky. Cities include Adams, Cedar Hill, Town of Coopertown, Cross Plains, Greenbriar, Orlinda, Ridgetop, and Springfield. Robertson County has eight active convenience center permits, and an active transfer station permit. The transfer station is owned and operated by the county where municipal solid waste is accepted from public and private service providers. The City of Adams, Cedar Hill, Coopertown, Cross Plains, Orlinda, and Ridgetop all depend on Robertson County to provide residential solid waste collection through the convenience center network. An active Class III landfill permit exists for the facility owned and operated by the county. In addition, the County owns a Class I permit that is not active. Robertson County is part of the three county, Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority planning region.
Figure 5.10 - Robertson County Solid Waste Structure
Greenbriar, Millersville, Springfield, and White House contract with private hauling companies to provide weekly, curbside residential solid waste collection services. The monthly service fee for curbside collection in Millersville is $15.60 per household and the City of Springfield charges $14 per month, on household utility bills, for residential garbage collection. The waste collected from these cities is delivered to the Robertson County transfer station where private service providers pay the tip fee. There are no publicly operated curbside recycling services, so all residential recyclables are collected through the Robertson County convenience centers, unless residents choose to contract directly with local companies providing service. Currently, a lack of collection containers prevents expansion of the existing list of residential recyclable materials collected. Metals, batteries, automotive fluids, and electronics are recycled. Latex paint is collected by the county and state contracted Clean Harbors handles proper disposal. Traffic at the Robertson County transfer station has increased, and the traffic flow is no longer efficient for the volume of vehicles using the facility. Additionally, waste from the transfer station is no longer transported to the Bi- County Landfill, in Montgomery County. MPG, formerly Queen City Disposal, hauls waste from the Robertson County transfer station to a nearby, out-of-state landfill, in Kentucky. The capacity at the Waste Connections owned landfill, in White Plains, Kentucky, appears to be infinite, based on the minimal tipping fees for disposal.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 29
Rutherford County Rutherford County is the second largest county within the GNRC district, based on population. Rutherford County is southeast of Metro Nashville and is one of the top five most populous counties in Tennessee. Murfreesboro, the geographic center of the state, is the county seat. Rutherford County is next to Wilson, Cannon, Coffee, Bedford, Marshall, Williamson, and Davidson counties, and covers an area of 624 square miles. Cities within Rutherford County include: Eagleville, LaVergne, Murfreesboro, and the Town of Smyrna. Rutherford County owns and operates 19 convenience centers, one of which is designated for collection of recyclable materials only. The Rutherford County Class III landfill is at capacity, but brush, tires and other similar waste streams continue to be accepted at the site. Construction and demolition materials are now sent to the Middle Point Class I Landfill for proper disposal. Rutherford County is home to Middle Point Landfill, the largest Class I landfill in the state, and it is privately owned by Republic Services. As host to the Middle Point Landfill, Rutherford County is provided free disposal of residential waste for the life of the landfill. As the region has grown, and the population increased, so has the volume of waste generated throughout Middle Tennessee. In the next few years, Middle Point Landfill is expected to reach capacity. Most of the volume going into the site is generated in Rutherford or Davidson counties. The closure of this landfill will greatly affect the waste flow throughout Middle Tennessee and beyond. Currently, an average of nearly 4,000 tons per day is deposited into this facility. The mix includes residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional waste, which will all have to be taken elsewhere, eventually. Rutherford County is currently creating a Request for Information to guide the next steps of a Request for Proposals that will help decision-makers consider options in how to best manage residential solid waste when the Middle Point Landfill reaches capacity. An integrated system is the preference, but the volume of waste handled by Rutherford County is not enough to feed different types of processing to divert materials from the landfill to beneficial use and recycling alternatives. Residents have not paid fees for services provided, and this will be a topic of contention since there is no perceived value with a “free” service. There are no curbside recycling services in Rutherford County because the lack of a service fee prevents any incentive for numerous residents to choose to follow recycling guidelines or pay for services. It is important to note the volume of waste managed by Rutherford County is approximately 45,000 tons annually, but according to the APR, the amount of municipal solid waste generated in the county, was more than 429,000 tons, in 2018. Eagleville, LaVergne, and the Town of Smyrna depend on Rutherford County convenience centers, or open market, private service providers for residential, curbside collection services. The Central Tennessee Solid Waste Planning Region is a four-county decision-making body, including: Rutherford, Cannon, Coffee, and Warren counties. Figure 5.11 - Rutherford County Solid Waste Structure
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 30
The City of Murfreesboro uses public resources to provide curbside residential solid waste collection services for residents in the city limits. Brush and yard waste are collected curbside and processed at the City of Murfreesboro Solid Waste Headquarters location, on Florence Road. In return for landfill leachate processing through the city wastewater treatment facility, the City is also provided free disposal of residential waste, at the Middle Point Landfill. Murfreesboro recently started charging a monthly service fee for curbside collection services. During the past 18 months, this fee that started at $5 per household, per month, was increased to $7.50 per household, per month. Figure 5.12 - City of Murfreesboro Solid Waste Structure
Stewart County Stewart County is on the northwestern border of Tennessee and has a total area of 493 square miles. Trigg County, Christian County, and Calloway counties, in Kentucky, as well as Montgomery, Houston, Benton, and Henry counties, in Tennessee, border this county. Dover is the county seat. Approximately, 44 percent of the land in Stewart County is controlled by federal and state agencies. Cumberland City and Dover are the two cities within the county. Stewart County is the second of two counties that partnered to create the Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority. Stewart County has seven active convenience center permits for facilities operated by the Bi-County Authority. Stewart County is part of the three county, Bi-County Solid Waste Management Authority planning region.
Sumner County Sumner County, northeast of Nashville, includes eight incorporated cities, including Gallatin, Goodlettsville, Hendersonville, Millersville, Mitchellville, Portland, Westmoreland, and White House. The City of Hendersonville is the largest, and Gallatin is the county seat. Total area of Sumner County is 543 square miles, and it is adjacent to Davidson, Macon, Robertson, Trousdale, and Wilson counties, in Tennessee, as well as Allen County and Simpson County, Kentucky. Sumner County depends on the Resource Authority of Sumner County (RASCO) for solid waste management. This authority owns and operates a transfer station, and adjacent convenience center. RASCO operates independent of local government and operates using a similar model to private business. Sumner County pays the Resource Authority of Sumner County (RASCO) $100,000 annually, in lieu of tip fees for residential solid waste delivered to the transfer station. The authority owns and operates a transfer station and convenience center for recyclables. The transfer station is open to public and private service providers, and often receives overflow from Metro Nashville and other surrounding counties. A portion of this funding covers some of the expenses associated with the recycling drop-off services at the convenience center. The RASCO does host a mobile HHW event, annually, in partnership with TDEC, that provides service to all residents in Sumner County. Sumner County is a one-county solid waste planning region but is dependent upon the Resource Authority of Sumner County for solid waste functions and services.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 31
Figure 5.13 - Resource Authority of Sumner County Solid Waste Structure
The City of Millersville and the City of White House are partially in Robertson and partially in Sumner County. Information about Millersville, and White House, is included in the section above, describing Robertson County services. The City of Goodlettsville is partially in Davidson and partially in Sumner County; detailed information about Goodlettsville is included in the section above, describing Metro Nashville Davidson County services. The cities of Mitchellville, and Westmoreland, as part of Sumner County, are dependent upon RASCO for residential solid waste services. The City of Portland uses public resources to provide weekly collection services to residents and commercial customers within the city limits. The city recently purchased an automated side loader that will not only reduce worker’s compensation liability but will also provide the most efficient service. The unincorporated area of Hendersonville is provided collection service by private companies, and much of the waste is delivered to the RASCO transfer station, where the private entity pays the tip fee based on weight. The City of Hendersonville contracts with a private service provider for residential curbside collection services. The waste is delivered to Middle Point Landfill, in Murfreesboro, at the discretion of the private service provider. The contract for city services is managed by the Public Works department, in conjunction with the Mayor’s office. The City of Gallatin uses city-owned equipment to provide curbside collection within the city limits, and this material is delivered to the RASCO transfer station facility. The City of Gallatin pays the tip fee for processing and disposal of materials delivered to the transfer station. Gallatin residents pay $12 per month, per household, on utility bills. A recycling only drop-off site, for residents, is available at the City of Gallatin Public Works Headquarters. Bulk items are collected from curbside, once weekly. Brush and bagged yard waste are collected, seasonally, as needed. The City of Gallatin recently purchased a glass pulverizer. The glass collected at their headquarters drop-off site is pulverized and the cullet is used in sidewalk base, drainage, and other municipal construction projects. This equipment has proven valuable in reducing the disposal fees paid for such a heavy material, but also reduced the price paid for rock that would normally be used in place of this pulverized glass. Overall, the City is pleased with the results.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 32
Figure 5.14 - City of Gallatin Solid Waste Structure
Trousdale County Trousdale County, Tennessee’s smallest county, is also known as Hartsville/Trousdale County because of the consolidated city-county metropolitan government structure. The county covers an area of 117 square miles, and Hartsville is the county seat. Macon County is on the north side, Smith County is to the east, Wilson County is south, and Sumner County lies to the west. The Hartsville-Trousdale Metropolitan government holds one permit for the publicly owned and operated convenience center. Trousdale County is part of the three-county North Central Tennessee Solid Waste Planning Region, that also includes Macon and Smith counties. Figure 5.15 - Hartsville-Trousdale and Houston County Solid Waste Structure
Williamson County Williamson County has a total area of 584 square miles and is surrounded by Davidson, Rutherford, Marshall, Maury, Hickman, Dickson, and Cheatham counties. Cities incorporated within the county: Brentwood, Fairview, Franklin, Nolensville, Thompson’s Station, and a portion of Spring Hill. This county has seen the largest increase in population since 2010. This growth is expected to continue with a projected 30 percent increase in population between 2020 and 2025. Williamson County owns and operates ten convenience centers for providing residential solid waste collection services. There is an active Class III landfill permit, and a transfer station permit for the facilities owned and operated by Williamson County government. The county also owns a material recovery facility (MRF) that is operated by a third-party contractor. Williamson County owns a Class I landfill permitted that is inactive. Williamson County is a one-county solid waste planning region.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 33
Figure 5.16 - Williamson County Solid Waste Structure
The City of Brentwood, City of Fairview, City of Nolensville, and Town of Thompson Station are dependent upon Williamson County Solid Waste for residential solid waste and recyclables collection, through their network of convenience centers. The City of Franklin provides residential curbside collection service. Those services include collection of household garbage, recyclables, brush, bagged yard waste, white goods, and bulk items. A third-party hauling contractor transports waste from the city-owned and operated transfer station, to the Bi-County Landfill. Figure 5.17 - City of Franklin Solid Waste Structure
The City of Spring Hill is partially located in Williamson County and partially in Maury County. Curbside collection of residential waste and recyclables is provided by a third-party contractor. Brush, yard waste, and bulk items are collected using city resources.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 34
Recyclables from Franklin, and Spring Hill, are delivered to the Marshall County owned and operated MRF, in Lewisburg, for processing.
Wilson County Wilson County is adjacent to Trousdale, Smith, DeKalb, Cannon, Rutherford, Davidson, and Sumner counties. The county has a total area of 583 square miles. Cities within the county are Lebanon, Mt Juliet, and Watertown. Wilson County’s population is projected to increase 18 percent between 2020 and 2040. Wilson County is permitted to operate seven convenience centers, and one Class III/IV landfill for C&D waste. The City of Mt Juliet, and Watertown, depend on Wilson County to provide residential solid waste collection services through convenience centers. The county also owns land and a permit for a Class I landfill that is not operational. Wilson County is a one-county solid waste planning region. Figure 5.18 - Wilson County Solid Waste Structure
The City of Lebanon uses public resources to provide curbside residential solid waste collection, each week. For additional services, residents use Wilson County convenience centers and landfill. Figure 5.19- City of Lebanon Solid Waste Structure
In addition to the structures presented, each county is affiliated with a solid waste planning region. Each region is comprised of a Board to administer activities of the region, including providing information on generation, collection and disposal of solid waste. In varying degrees, regional solid waste boards serve as support for local governments in solid waste decision-making, as well as long-term planning.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 35
5.3 Facilities
Convenience Centers Convenience centers are restricted for use by residents in the county where they are located. There are several locations in Davidson County, a couple in Williamson County, and one in Rutherford County that are designated as recycling drop-off sites. These locations do not accept household garbage, bulky waste, yard debris, or other residential waste, only the accepted recyclables in each respective county.
Class I Landfills There are two Class I permitted landfills located in the GNRC district. These two landfills: (1) Republic Services owned Middle Point Landfill, in Rutherford County, and (2) Bi-County Solid Waste Landfill, in Montgomery County serve not only GNRC counties, but are open market for service providers and residents, as needed.
Class III/IV Landfills There are several Class III/IV landfills permitted in the GNRC district. While that number may seem sufficient to manage the volumes of C&D waste generated, there are several of those sites reaching capacity. As a result of the growth in Middle Tennessee the volumes of C&D materials will continue to increase. When the demand for capacity is high, the tip fee for Class III/IV landfill disposal increases; but the tip fees for Class I MSW landfill space have not increased at the same rate. Therefore, C&D materials are being mixed with MSW for disposal in Class I facilities, and the capacity decreases leaving less space for residential waste disposal. C&D materials are not typically generated from residential customers, but in the current market with lack of added infrastructure, the increase in population and the movement of C&D materials to Class I landfills will directly affect costs associated with residential solid waste management.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 36
Figure 5.20 - Convenience Centers and Recycling Facilities
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 37
Figure 5.21 – Active Landfills
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 38
Section 6. Existing Capacity and Facilities
The following section provides an overview of existing services and facilities. The facilities available for processing various types of materials are permitted and regulated by TDEC. These resources are diverse but do not offer effective, efficient options for managing the waste materials we generate. Today, the region is heavily dependent upon landfills for waste disposal. The amount of available permitted space and the low fees associated with use of a landfill have prevented behavior from changing to more responsible options for materials management.
6.1 Estimated Life of Facilities The following projected life span of Class I landfills is provided by the TDEC 2019 Remaining Life Survey Class I (Sanitary) Landfill Sites in Tennessee. Figure 6.1 Tennessee Class I Landfills
Class I Facilities Site Name County Tons per Day* Projected Life Middle Point Landfill Class I Rutherford 3,682 8 yrs 6 mo West Camden Class I Benton 2,037 25 yrs + Cedar Ridge Class I Marshall 1,800 14 yrs 8 mo Bi-County Class I Montgomery 700 11yrs 7 mo Smith County Class I Smith 450 10 mo Decatur County Class I Decatur 0 Closed North Shelby Class I Shelby 1,312 25 yrs + Northwest Class I Obion 633 25 yrs + Upper Cumberland Class I Clay 118 6 yrs 2 mo Rhea County Class I Rhea 1,601 4 yrs 9 mo South Shelby Class I Shelby 1,959 25 yrs + Meadow Branch Class I McMinn 2,420 18 yrs 7 mo Source: TDEC 2019 Remaining Life Survey Class I Landfill Sites (*based on 6-day work week)
Currently, there are two active Class I landfill permits in the GNRC district. One of these landfills is privately-owned Middle Point Landfill, and the other is publicly owned Bi-County Landfill. Increases in population, and per capita personal income, in addition to the added waste volumes generated from natural disasters such as tornadoes and most recent increases resulting from clutter clean-out during COVID-19 safer at home orders, landfill capacity is shrinking and the life expectancies will decrease because of added, unexpected volumes of landfilled waste. There are currently no pending Class I landfill permits listed in the TDEC database. When Middle Point Landfill reaches capacity there will be approximately 4,000 tons of waste that will need disposal daily, and, in turn, will fill up available landfill space at a much faster rate than currently. The Bi-County Landfill has capacity, and could serve as a regional landfill for MSW, accepting a large portion of the displaced waste from Middle Point Landfill. However, the proximity of the Bi-County Landfill, to the Waste Connections Landfill in White Plains, Kentucky, will pose challenges until the tip fees at these two landfills are closer in range. Essentially, the lower tip fee at the landfill located in Kentucky, gives economic benefit to customers who can manage the transportation costs and logistics, as opposed to paying a higher tip fee at Bi-County Landfill.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 39
Composting There is one active composting permit with a facility located in the GNRC district. The Compost Company, in Cheatham County, has an active permit for accepting yard waste, food waste, and other organics that are processed into compost.
Transfer Stations Seventeen active transfer station permits exist in the GNRC district. As identified in the table below, these facilities are primarily located in Metro Nashville Davidson County. Figure 6.2 – Active Transfer Station Permits
Permittee Address County Cheatham County Govt 2791 Sams Creek Road; Pegram Cheatham Waste Management, Inc 1428 Antioch Pike; Nashville Davidson Odell Binkley 3516 Central Pike; Hermitage Davidson Waste Management, Inc 3211 Franklin Limestone Rd; Davidson Nashville BFI Waste Services, LLC 201 Omohundro Place; Nashville Davidson Waste Connections of TN 1000 Apex Street; Nashville Davidson Music City Pick A Part, LLC 922 Lebanon Pike; Nashville Davidson Dickson County Govt 500 Eno Road; Dickson Dickson Houston County Govt Fire Tower Road; Erin Houston Waste Management, Inc 881 Alfred Thun Rd; Clarksville Montgomery Bi-County Solid Waste 1230 Highway Drive; Clarksville Montgomery Robertson County Govt 2916 West County Farm Rd; Robertson Springfield Rockwood Recycling 5042 Old Nashville Hwy; Rutherford Murfreesboro J&A - Jeremy Jones 3262-C Hwy 76; Cottontown Sumner Resource Authority of Sumner County 625 Rappahanock Wire Rd; Gallatin Sumner Williamson County Govt 5750 Pinewood Rd; Franklin Williamson City of Franklin 411 Century Court; Franklin Williamson Source: TDEC Solid Waste Dataviewer Facility Highlights: • Waste Management’s Antioch Pike transfer station accepts waste from public and private service providers and the materials are transported to Waste Management owned West Camden Landfill (Benton County), or Cedar Ridge Landfill (Marshall County) for final disposal. • If Odell Binkley’s Central Pike transfer station is still operational, the capacity is limited and cannot be considered a viable option for separating and transferring C&D materials. • Waste Management’s transfer station located on Franklin Limestone Road is no longer operational. This facility is listed with an active transfer station permit, however, there was a request for termination of the permit in November 2013, with confirmation of condition and approval from TDEC in February 2014. • The transfer station located on Omohundro Place is listed with BFI Waste Services as the Permittee. This facility was acquired by Republic Services with the purchase of BFI and is still operational with waste being transported to the Middle Point Landfill, in Murfreesboro. • Waste Connections transfer station on Apex Street, is listed with an active permit and was previously used for pallet recycling after a scrap metal processor vacated the facility. The permit lists this site as a non- hazardous transfer station, but activity at this site is not common.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 40
• The Music City Pick A Part transfer station permit, located on Lebanon Pike, was recently purchased as part of Waste Connections’ acquisition of Queen City Disposal. Construction on a new transfer station has started at this location, so there will be capacity for added volume in the future. This waste will likely be transported to the Waste Connections owned landfill in White Plains, Kentucky. • Cheatham County’s transfer station is open for use by public and private service providers. The waste accepted at this facility is transported to the Bi-County Landfill for disposal. • Dickson County owns a transfer station that serves public and private service providers. Waste from this location is transferred to the Waste Management owned West Camden Landfill, in Benton County. • Houston County’s transfer station does not operate like other transfer stations in the district. Access to this site is limited and cannot accommodate large volumes of materials, despite the fact the transfer station permit is active, and the site is used as a convenience center for accepting residential waste. • The transfer station on Alfred Thun Road, in Clarksville, is permitted to Waste Management. This location is used as a facility for local hauling functions and does not process or transfer waste. • Bi-County Solid Waste Authority owns and operates the transfer station located on Highway Drive. This facility was built in the late 1970s and is approaching the need for extensive work. Clarksville has grown around this transfer station and now residential development makes this location less than optimal for efficient transfer of waste. • Robertson County’s transfer station is open for both public and private customers. The waste transported from this facility is hauled to the Waste Connections Landfill, in White Plains, Kentucky. • Rockwood Recycling owns the only active transfer station permit in Rutherford County. If this facility can be built and made operational prior to Middle Point Landfill reaching capacity, this will prove to be an asset not only to Rutherford County, but surrounding counties, as well. • The transfer station in Cottontown is not operational, and therefore, is not considered a site for transferring added volumes of waste from Middle Tennessee. • The RASCO transfer station on Rappahanock Wire Road is active and accepts waste from public and private service providers. Recent events tested the ability for this facility to accommodate large volumes of extra waste. There is some capacity at this facility, but the volumes have quickly increased when other sites reach capacity, or the pricing structure proves to be economical for customers. • Williamson County’s transfer station is located at the C&D landfill property. Public and private service providers are welcome to use this facility as long as the waste they deliver was generated in Williamson County. Volumes from this site are transported to the Waste Management, West Camden Landfill, in Benton County. • The City of Franklin owns and operates a transfer station that accepts waste from public and private service providers throughout the Middle Tennessee area. The waste is transferred from this facility to the Bi-County Landfill, by a private hauling company.
After considering the seventeen active transfer station permits, only nine of those are accepting MSW for transport to a landfill. These facilities have some capacity but will not be able to accommodate the volume when Middle Point Landfill reaches capacity. The Waste Connections transfer station (Music City Pick A Part, Lebanon Pike) is under construction, and the Rockwood Recycling site has not yet developed a design for the facility. Upon completion of these two transfer stations, some of the pressure on specific facilities to manage unexpected increased volumes will be shared, and volumes will be more balanced. However, more transfer stations will be needed to create infrastructure for efficient transportation of waste materials from these facilities for final disposal.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 41
Processing Twenty-three active processing permits represent facilities located throughout the GNRC district. These operations are in a small sampling of GNRC counties, including Davidson, Montgomery, Robertson, Rutherford, and Sumner. Figure 6.3 – 13-County GNRC Region: Active Processing Permits
Permittee Address County Atomic Resource Recovery, LLC 806 16th Avenue N; Davidson Nashville Waste Management, Inc 1428 Antioch Pike; Davidson Antioch Nashville RRC River Hills 208 River Hills Drive; Davidson (Waste Management) Nashville Waste Management TN Environmental 4651 Amy Lynn Drive; Nashville Davidson Center, LLC Ground Up Recycling 3552 Hermitage Industrial Dr; Davidson Hermitage Combs Industrial Services, Inc 1501 Baptist World Center Dr; Davidson Nashville AEP, Inc 501 Crutcher St; Davidson Nashville Nashville RRC Rivergate 630 Myatt Drive; Davidson (Waste Management) Madison VADCO, Inc 1629 Elm Hill Pike; Davidson Nashville Liberty Tire Recycling, Inc 1941 Cement Plant Road; Davidson Nashville BFI Waste Services, LLC 7320 Centennial Blvd; Nashville Davidson Liquid Environmental Solutions of TN, 501 Cave Road; Davidson LLC Nashville Full Circle Disposal, LLC 5800 Centennial Blvd; Nashville Davidson Tradebe Environmental Services, LLC 450 Edenwold Road; Madison Davidson Atomic Resource Recovery, LLC 804 14th Ave N & 806 14th N; Davidson Nashville CWM, LLC 511 Cave Road; Davidson Nashville MPG Rentals 1309 Tylertown Rd; Montgomery Clarksville Bi-County Solid Waste Mgt 3212 Dover Road; Montgomery Woodlawn Environmental Concepts & Services, 1134 New Hope Lane; Springfield Robertson Inc Re Run of Tennessee, LLC 783 14th Ave & D Street; Smyrna Rutherford Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC 5042 New Nashville Hwy; Rutherford Murfreesboro Southeastern Compost, LLC 5590 Hickory Grove Rd; Rutherford Murfreesboro Hendersonville Resource Facility Forest Retreat Rd; Hendersonville Sumner Source: TDEC Solid Waste Dataviewer
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 42
Facility Highlights: • Processing permits for construction and demolition materials include the Atomic Resource Recovery, LLC, Full Circle Disposal, LLC, and CWM, LLC facilities, although the CWM location is the only operating site. • The Waste Management processing operation on Antioch Pike, and the Centennial Boulevard operation that was acquired by Republic, with the purchase of BFI, are not active locations. • Waste Management owns and operates the River Hills MRF, the Myatt Drive MRF, and the Southern Services C&D facility, located on Amy Lynn Drive. • Ground Up Recycling, processes shingles for recycling. • AEP, Inc, and Re-Run of Tennessee, LLC, are both facilities used for processing waste from local industry operations. • Greif Recycling, an Industrial Packaging Manufacturer, operates the facility located at Baptist World Center Drive, in Davidson County. Cardboard, mixed paper, and other fiber materials are accepted and processed to feed company-owned trade mills. • VADCO, Inc, and Liquid Environmental Solutions of TN, LLC are facilities that process wastewater. • Liberty Tire Recycling, Inc, owns and operates the company responsible for managing tires, throughout the state. • Tradebe Environmental Services, LLC, operates a processing facility for household hazardous waste materials. • MPG Rentals separates and processes metals at the Clarksville facility. • The Bi-County, and the Hendersonville permits, are for yard waste and wood processing. • Environmental Concepts & Services, Inc, recycles used oil, manages universal wastes, and processes electronics waste for recycling. • Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC, uses the facility on New Nashville Highway to process and recycle shingles. • Southeastern Compost, LLC processes wood waste, yard waste, and treated wastewater sludge to create compost. While there appear to be several permits for processors, it is important to note what materials each facility accepts and processes. Residential waste is a mix of materials that would typically be separated in a MRF, of which there are two located in the GNRC district. Additionally, it is the shingle and tire recyclers, and other C&D processors, that can help alleviate the volumes of these materials that are filling up Class I landfill space in Middle Tennessee, because there is a lack of permitted Class III/IV landfill space. Marshall County, south of the GNRC district, owns and operates a MRF, that accepts residential recyclables from the City of Franklin, and Spring Hill, but the operation is dependent upon inmate labor that is not always consistent and dependable. As recycling is reevaluated, markets will rebound from decreased demand, but the rebound will require clean materials that can be purchased in place of virgin materials for US manufacturing operations. As landfills reach capacity, materials will have to be transported further distances for responsible processing and disposal. Transfer stations allow smaller vehicles to empty on a tip floor, where materials are mixed and larger loads transferred to the appropriate facility. Additional transfer stations, as well as recycling, composting and other processing facilities will be needed to accommodate the increasing volumes of solid waste generated in the GNRC district.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 43
6.2 Regional Generators
Municipal Solid Waste The average residential solid waste, and waste flow, generated in the GNRC district and surrounding counties are illustrated in following figures. MSW generated in GNRC counties is illustrated in Figures 6.4 through 6.7. Figure 6.4 – Annualized Tonnage Generated by County (MSW)
Source: TDEC Annual Progress Reports Analytics
The following two figures present the generation in GNRC district, by county, illustrated to show the majority of GNRC generated MSW is landfilled at the Middle Point Landfill. While other landfills are listed, because some GNRC generated waste was buried at those locations, the distance prevents these locations from being viable, long-term, sustainable solutions without alternative transportation options.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 44
Figure 6.5 – Municipal Solid Waste Landfilled (2016-2018)
Figure 6.6 – Annualized Tonnage Class I Landfill Use (2016-2018)
Facility GNRC Counties Other
Middle Point Landfill Class I 911,687.57 135,623.24 West Camden Class I 410,477.47 63,275.62 Cedar Ridge Class I 348,835.08 169,191.42 Bi-County Class I 197,899.01 1,183.58 Smith County Class I 87,160.59 12,974.69 Decatur County Class I 8,147.04 104,815.68 North Shelby Class I 1,057.75 363,163.61 Northwest Class I 873.90 84,893.49 Upper Cumberland Class I 653.32 25,019.86 Rhea County Class I 279.88 357,487.20 South Shelby Class I 45.82 462,434.00 Meadow Branch Class I 2.92 671,651.66 Source: TDEC Annual Progress Reports Analytics
The waste flow of MSW into and outside of the GNRC district is illustrated on the map below. Essentially, the majority of residential MSW is landfilled in the Middle Tennessee area, with minimal amounts buried in outlying areas. The expected increase in population will increase the amount of MSW generated, but the disposal locations closest to the generation points are expected to reach capacity and no longer be viable options for use.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 45
Figure 6.7 - Annualized MSW Tonnage Landfilled from Point of Generation
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 46
Construction and Demolition Waste The average construction and demolition waste, and waste flow, generated in the GNRC district, are illustrated in the Figures 6.8 through 6.11 Figure 6.8 – Annualized Tonnage Generated by County (C&D)
Source: TDEC Annual Progress Reports Analytics The following two figures present the generation in GNRC district, by county, illustrated to show the majority of GNRC generated C&D is landfilled at the Southern Services Landfill. While other landfills are listed, because some GNRC generated C&D waste was buried at those locations, the amounts are minimal. Thus, the Waste Management owned Southern Services site is the primary disposal site for 468,348 tons of the 705,435 tons of construction and demolition materials generated in the GNRC district.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 47
Figure 6.9 – C&D Solid Waste Landfilled GNRC Compared to Outside Generators (2016-2018)
Figure 6.10 - Annualized Tonnage Class III/IV Landfill Use (2016-2018)
Facility GNRC Other
Southern Services Class III 468,348.33 843.25 Bi-County Class III 66,610.70 9.17 Bi-County Class IV 62,214.74 782.10 Williamson County Class III 37,121.10 - 0 - Rutherford County Class III 16,573.97 330.8 Wilson County Class III 16,318.10 - 0 - Ft Campbell Class IV 11,470.71 - 0 - Central Pike Class IV 8,444.00 - 0 - Smith County Class III 7,018.17 1,350.04 Dickson County Class III 6,757.71 - 0 - Humphreys County Class III 3,122.04 - 0 - Wilson County Class IV 1,435.01 - 0 -
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 48
Figure 6.11 - Annualized C&D Tonnage Landfilled from Point of Generation
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 49
Life expectancy for Class III/IV landfills is not published. The rate of growth in Middle Tennessee, coupled with waste volumes generated during recent tornadoes and the COVID-19 pandemic, have made it clear that regardless of the estimated life, any or all these sites could reach capacity much sooner than expected. Additionally, the Rutherford County Class III Landfill reached capacity earlier this year. The materials once landfilled at this facility are now sent directly to Class I, Middle Point Landfill, for disposal. Humphreys County Class III landfill has also reached capacity. The C&D waste from this area may be delivered to the Dickson County site in the future. This chain reaction needs attention to not only protect the permitted Class I landfill space, but also foster more responsible options for processing and disposal of C&D waste.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 50
Section 7. Statement of District Goals
This section presents the district’s goals for handling and processing the waste it generates and how those goals align with the State’s 2015-2025 Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan.
Objectives of the State Plan In 2015, the 10-year Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan (2025 Plan), for the State of Tennessee, was adopted. This plan intended to serve as a roadmap to guide effective management of discarded materials and fulfill policy statements of the 1991 Solid Waste Management Act (the Act).
Eight objectives were presented in the 2025 Plan: • Update Goals and Measure Progress • Increase Access to and Participation in Recycling • Enhance Processing and End Markets • Increase Diversion of Organics • Support New Diversion Technology • Expand and Focus Education and Outreach • Ensure Sufficient and Environmentally Sound Disposal • Develop Sustainable Funding Sources for Sustainable Materials Management
In the spring of 2018, GNRC created the Middle Tennessee Solid Waste Directors RoundTable. This group of industry professionals continues to meet on a regular basis, collaborating with each other regarding these eight objectives, as well as hearing from private companies that have potential to solve some common problems in the Middle Tennessee area.
Goals and Measure Progress The purpose of Objective 1 was to more accurately measure the disposition of MSW in Tennessee, and to better assess progress toward achieving solid waste management goals. Related efforts to achieve this objective have included: • Data presented in the Solid Waste Master Plan for Middle Tennessee was extracted from Annual Progress Reports (APRs). APRs are completed by each county, annually, based on management and volumes of specific waste streams, and operational information gathered throughout the year. This Plan illustrated the ability to use annual data to assist in planning and identifying opportunities for continuous operational improvements, which was not evident in efforts to use this data in the past. • RoundTable conversations regarding terminology and how to best define source reduction, waste diversion, recycling, reuse, and beneficial use have furthered the idea that common industry language is not always standard. Efforts to clarify definitions for terms referenced in APRs can help improve the value and consistency of information gathered.
Recycling Participation The purpose of Objective 2 is to expand the breadth of recycling ensuring all Tennesseans have access to convenient recycling programs, as well as expanding participation in recycling programs. Tennessee’s Solid Waste Management Act established the goal for MSW planning regions to reduce volumes of materials disposed of in Class I landfills by 25 percent. The philosophy behind achieving this goal is to incorporate several processes to effectively manage solid waste through waste reduction, recycling, composting, and reuse
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 51
activities. In 2007, after realizing this goal was not realistic, the Act was amended to assign a Solid Waste Advisory Committee to recommend an updated goal for residential recycling. Currently, the measurement of this goal is inconsistent. Calculations for recycling goals include a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional sources, but the residential waste stream is what each county, across the state, is required to manage. Recently, as a result of decreased demand, the supply of local recyclable increased to the point where many service providers began landfilling the materials because the cost to sort, transport, and sell them was more than choosing to use a landfill for disposal. More recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic created a situation where many recycling programs were suspended or discontinued because with social distancing and modified work schedules, resources were not available to keep collecting, transporting, and sorting these materials separately from household garbage. Related efforts to achieve this objective have included: • Solid Waste Directors RoundTable discussion of creating a short-list of common materials that can be collected for recycling at all collection points in Middle Tennessee • Focused efforts on collaborative, consistent educational messaging, across the district, to teach residents how to properly clean materials for recycling • Developing a list of various southeast manufacturers who can use materials generated in Middle Tennessee, as feedstock for manufacturing processes • Ongoing discussions of how to consolidate volumes for efficient transportation of recyclable materials • Team approach to identifying possible outlets for special waste streams, such as e-waste
If quality of recyclable materials is not addressed, the quantity is a moot point since those materials are not marketable. Once improved quality is achieved, quantity of materials for recycling will increase, and established goals can be reached.
Processing and End Markets The purpose of Objective 3 is to facilitate closing the materials processing gaps and increasing the opportunities for end uses of recovered materials in Tennessee, to incentivize increased diversion and as a result strengthen the state’s economy. Related efforts to achieve this objective have included: • Consistent “gaps” have been identified in processing infrastructure for specific materials and end markets • Working together, as a district, to understand what level of quality is needed to satisfy local manufacturers who have capacity to accept materials • Creating networks of possible partners within the industry, in conjunction with a consistent list of recyclable materials, and connecting the point of generation with the potential end market • Communicating the successes of the Chester County recycling hub, and continuing conversations about which areas of Middle Tennessee are strategically located between points of generation and end markets, with a need for economic development created from processing facilities
Diversion of Organics The purpose of Objective 4 is to encourage the reuse, composting, and beneficial use of organics, and implement source reduction efforts to decrease the volume of materials landfilled. Metro Nashville’s Achieving Zero Waste Plan presented data to indicate organics and paper make up approximately 55 percent of the residential waste stream. Considering more than half of the waste volume that’s landfilled could be diverted and recycled into compost, should be incentive enough to consider improving on existing infrastructure and availability of processing facilities for these materials.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 52
Challenges associated with implementation of composting as an option for diverting organics from the waste stream include: • Initial and continuous public education for residents on how to produce clean waste streams that won’t contaminate operations • Food waste, which is not included in the estimated 55 percent of compostable waste, is not common in our Middle Tennessee area, which requires added efforts for extensive education to satisfy not only organics and paper, but also food waste as a material that can be diverted from landfills through composting • Treated wastewater output is a material that is most often delivered to local Class I landfills for disposal. Adding sludge to compost requires independent public education to ensure peace of mind in using the compost material is certain applications • Identifying a viable, long-term outlet for the final product(s) proves near impossible either based on need for more collection options, poor quality, lack of consistent demand, or a combination of these issues
Technology The purpose of Objective 5 is to support adoption of new technologies to help Tennessee move closer to reaching the waste reduction and diversion goals. Related efforts to achieve this objective have included: • Technology focused on creating energy from MSW, and more efficient, economical processes to create quality feedstock, diverting recyclables from landfills, continue to evolve. Some of these technologies have promise in being successful, while others are merely ideas sketched on paper that may or may not be responsible options for better managing our waste streams in Middle Tennessee. As GNRC continues to work with local solid waste professionals, and elected officials, to help solve current and long-term issues related to materials management, the importance of sharing which technologies may be viable and which are not proven successful will further the efforts of TDEC to support new waste reduction and recycling technologies.
Public Education The purpose of Objective 6 is to improve education and outreach regarding opportunities for source reduction, recycling, and composting, and the benefits of these activities relative to disposal. Public education and community outreach are critical when customers are expected to prepare materials in a way that will reduce the contamination, while increasing the value of the materials. Local governments throughout Middle Tennessee have a range of materials that are collected, provide collection services in different ways, and use various markets for selling recyclable materials once collected or processed. This creates confusion for residents, especially when they move from one area in the region to another. Related efforts to achieve this objective have included: • GNRC’s Solid Waste Directors Roundtable identified the need to adopt a list of common materials that could be collected by all local governments engaged in providing collection of recyclables. This list would include cardboard, metals, mixed paper, plastics #1 and #2, and some preferred to offer glass collection. If a collective effort is made to adopt the same list of materials for recycling services, the public education and community outreach can be shared amongst several local governments. Choosing to re-focus on a basic list of recyclable materials could provide a cleaner, higher quality product for buyers. At the outset this will not produce high volumes of materials, but higher quality.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 53
Disposal The purpose of Objective 7 is to monitor MSW disposal capacity to ensure enough disposal facilities are maintained in an environmentally sound manner.
The 2025 Plan states that the permitted MSW disposal capacity, across the state is expected to be exhausted in 2036. This projection assumes there will be: • no additional Class I, MSW landfills constructed, • the ability for MSW to travel anywhere in the state for solid waste disposal, and • the net quantity of MSW imported/exported remains unchanged.
Growth in Middle Tennessee continues, and with that, the volume of waste generated will continue to increase as the amount of permitted Class I (MSW) landfill space available decreases.
Sufficient and environmentally sound disposal is dependent upon: • landfill owners and operators taking responsibility in managing the current permitted space, • communities partnering to ensure reduce, reuse, and recycling are active options at the local residential point of generation, • availability of land, • support for new permits in the midst of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), and • resources and infrastructure available for transporting materials longer distances.
There is currently one publicly owned and operated Class I landfill, and one privately owned Class I landfill in the GNRC district. The only privately-owned Class I landfill is nearing capacity, which leaves only one MSW landfill available for end use disposal in the northern Middle Tennessee area. Bordering the region are three MSW landfills that are currently used, but, again, will not handle the volume dispersed from Middle Point once it is full. Decision- makers have begun to recognize the value of solid waste services as prices increase, in relation to the expectation landfill space is decreasing. However, community pushback, political will, and needed resources all pose challenges to new efforts in building a Class I landfill. This directly points to alternative processes, like recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy for improved solid waste management efforts that can reduce the overall landfilled volumes and protect some of the space that is already permitted. If additional permits are not applied for, waste streams will have to be transported further distances, often to landfills located out of state that are closer than those located in the western and eastern portions of the state. In addition, the state receives $1.25 per ton surcharge from state landfills, based on the amount of municipal waste buried. The domino effect is the loss of these revenues to the state when waste is not landfilled within the state borders.
Funding The purpose of Objective 8 is to ensure local governments have sustainable funding sources in place to develop and support programs to manage municipal solid waste. Currently, most counties use property tax monies to fund residential solid waste services. Many residents never see the value of services provided because there is no itemized cost associated with this county government function. On the other hand, cities that provide solid waste services often add a fee to existing utility bills associated with each utility provided. The 2025 Plan identifies strategies to achieve this goal are: • consider increasing tipping fee surcharges on disposed solid waste, • raise revenue for waste reduction, recycling, and integrated solid waste management from new source, and • support development of sustainable funding strategies for local programs.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 54
Increasing the surcharges directly increases state revenue, and based on the Plan, as much of those monies as possible would be returned to communities that paid those surcharges on waste generated and disposed of in state landfills.
These revenues are assigned to support improved recycling, composting, and waste reduction programs. Current challenges associated with where to apply these funds exist, and an increase in surcharges would provide added funding, but a consistent criterion for support of regional solid waste management efforts would be most beneficial to Middle Tennessee.
New revenue sources include extended producer responsibility for specific waste streams, like tires. For instance, electronics which would require an advanced disposal fee at the point of purchase, or a fee charged to the manufacturer of the product would generate funding for responsible handling of these items at their end of life, if the revenues were designated for such functions. Full-cost accounting offers useful data for performance measurement, operations efficiencies, setting service-related fees, and activity-based management. Essentially, all direct and indirect costs are accounted for with each function or service provided. This method of accounting resembles tools used for private business, can produce transparency for revenues and expenses, but also serves as a decision-making tool for local governments. In the GNRC Solid Waste Master Plan for Middle Tennessee, the rising costs of solid waste management and disposal were a top concern of elected officials. Residential waste collection services must be provided by county government, and costs increase as landfill capacity decreases. Regardless of the structure for providing services, using public-owned resources or privatization, county budgets must include funding for these services. Cheatham, Robertson, and Dickson counties have all started to assess better ways to cover costs associated with solid waste collection, transport, and disposal. Counties do not typically own utility services, as cities do, and the mechanisms for billing residents on a regular monthly or quarterly schedule are not available or economical. Some considerations have included itemizing property tax bills, paying a third-party company to provide the accounts payable and receivable services, setting up a division within existing accounting departments to take responsibility for the billing and collection of payments, adding an option for individual households to purchase household garbage bags at local retailers to encourage pay- as-you-throw funding, the idea of including a solid waste fee on license tags, similar to wheel tax, and purchase of punch cards for a defined number of services. As costs continue to rise, and budgets are constrained, these ideas will be tested and some common solutions for county-funding of solid waste operations will become evident. Audits of operational efficiencies, in conjunction with alternative funding mechanisms, like full-cost accounting, can communicate value and provide transparency for any solid waste system.
Technical Assistance Extensive support for ongoing conversations connecting local governmental entities, with private partners to fill the needs associated with efficient, economically feasible, effective solid waste management is ongoing. Developing and presenting a training workshop not only for how to complete the Annual Progress Reports, but how to gather data, definitions of each category to ensure consistency in the list of materials accounted for in the report, and working directly with each planning region to mediate inconsistencies and ensure understanding of the overall goals of measurement, to include how data can be used to support future funding, initiatives, and regional efforts to create an integrated solid waste system would benefit all partners in the process. The jurisdictions throughout the GNRC district continue to evaluate their current operations, look to alternative technologies for potential solutions, assess different funding methods, reconsider recycling programs, and work to secure long-term contracts as they manage solid waste functions locally. A regional, integrated solid waste system, led by a Solid Waste Authority, would benefit counties and cities, alike.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 55
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 56
Section 8. Capacity and Projected Demands
The following information expands on Section 6 providing flow analysis, overview of facility capacity and discussion of projected demands on the solid waste system.
8.1 Solid Waste Facility Capacity As the region works toward building an integrated solid waste management system, there are additional facilities needed to serve what is expected to be diverted from landfills and managed through recycling, composting and other facilities for processing. Siting and permitting additional material recovery facilities (MRFs) would allow for more efficient processing of collected recyclables. Additionally, investing in options to improve collection services could positively impact transportation costs. Locating new facilities as close to the point of generation as possible, reduces costs, and provides for more efficient functions in an integrated solid waste management system. Siting and permitting every type of facility needed in every county, including landfills, is not practical or economically feasible. Each solid waste facility needs a volume of material to consistently maintain daily operating functions to keep the system moving and meet permit requirements. Class I, MSW landfill space is quickly diminishing in Middle Tennessee. Statistics for the state do not provide a realistic picture of the situation in Middle Tennessee. There have been no applications submitted to permit a new Class I landfill, and the counties that own permitted land for a Class I landfill have no plans to open those sites. Considering the time needed to go through the required process to obtain a permit, and open a new landfill, alternative options must be identified and secured before Middle Point Landfill reaches capacity. Referring to Figure 6.5 and 6.6, on page 45, Middle Point Landfill and Bi-County Landfill are the two MSW permitted sites in the GNRC area. Of note, Middle Point is most utilized, but Bi-County is fourth on the list of MSW landfills used by GNRC counties. West Camden and Cedar Ridge are both owned by Waste Management, one located to the west, in Benton County, and the other located south of Rutherford County, in Marshall County. Most of the incoming waste to Smith County Landfill is generated in GNRC counties; and rounds out the list of the five primary sites used for MSW disposal by the GNRC district. Decatur County shows a small volume from GNRC operations, but as noted previously, this site closed in early 2020 with remaining capacity. When the Middle Point Landfill reaches capacity, there will be an immediate need for alternative Class I landfill space in Middle Tennessee. The average 1,047,311 annual tons, currently buried in Middle Point, will be spread across the remaining Class I landfills. As shown in Figure 6.1, Middle Point Landfill has a projected life expectancy of 8 years and 6 months, but currently accepts nearly 4,000 tons each day, more than was reported in the 2019 Remaining Life Survey. The second most used Class I landfill for GNRC generated waste is West Camden. The expected life is more than 25 years but adding 4,000 tons per day to the current 2,037 would decrease the expected life by 200 percent because the volume accepted would increase by as much. Cedar Ridge Landfill, in Marshall County, could accept some of the waste from counties in the southern portion of the GNRC district. This landfill currently accepts 1,800 tons per day, and, again, would greatly reduce the life expectancy from the current 14 years and 8 months depending upon how much of the volume from Middle Point Landfill ends up at this site. Based on the daily averages reported, the two Waste Management owned landfills, West Camden and Cedar Ridge, currently, with volumes added together, are less than the total disposed of at Middle Point, annually. The other Class I landfills can also accept a portion of the waste generated in the GNRC district, but none can offer a single solution. The landfills furthest away from GNRC counties receive less volume from Middle Tennessee service
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 57
providers but can expect an increase in the amount of waste incoming from this area once Middle Point Landfill is full. The distance to southern Kentucky, northern Mississippi, and northern Alabama landfills will make exporting waste to those states more appealing economically if tip fees remain low and transportation options continue to evolve. Figures 6.9 and 6.10, on page 48, illustrate the landfill use for average volumes of C&D landfilled materials, from 2016 until 2018, in Class III/IV landfills used by the GNRC district, during this time. All twelve of these landfills are in the GNRC region. Of note, Southern Services Class III is privately owned and most utilized. Because the capacity of these landfills is not reported, when the current permitted space is full, there may be a need for an alternate location(s) to accept the nearly half million tons of C&D materials being landfilled, annually, at this facility. The rate of growth in Middle Tennessee, coupled with waste volumes generated during recent tornadoes and the COVID-19 pandemic, have made it clear that regardless of the estimated life, any or all of these sites could reach capacity much sooner than expected. Additionally, the Rutherford County Class III Landfill reached capacity earlier this year. The materials once landfilled at this facility are now sent directly to Class I, Middle Point Landfill, for disposal. Humphreys County Class III Landfill has also reached capacity. The C&D waste from this area is expected to be delivered to the Dickson County Class III Landfill soon. This chain reaction needs attention to not only protect permitted Class I landfill space, but also foster more responsible options for processing and disposal of C&D waste. An integrated solid waste management system, including recycling processing, composting, and transfer stations, will be needed for responsible management of the residential waste generated in Middle Tennessee.
8.2 Solid Waste Facility Challenges Collection Collection services continue to be localized. Maintaining collection at this level allows counties and cities to control that function within the solid waste management system. As rural areas develop, existing convenience centers will require ongoing assessment. Eventually curbside collection in currently unincorporated or rural areas may allow for collection efficiencies through curbside services. The current state of recycling markets and the economy do not appear to support expansion of recycling efforts, and in many cases, communities have discontinued the convenient curbside collection services. Material recovery facilities have been plagued with contamination, and the COVID-19 pandemic shut many public processors down because they are dependent upon local inmate labor that was not available during times when residents were directed to stay home unless necessary. There is an opportunity to rebuild recycling. Returning to a short list of materials with markets in the southeast and focusing on public education to improve the quality of these materials is the first step in renewal of initiatives for diverting waste from landfills. The hub and spoke model for recovery facilities with local governments working together to feed clean materials to these facilities has value, but does, again, require resources and coordination for success. Regardless of the collection method, and processing systems that can divert materials from landfills, transfer stations are an important component to not only manage waste volumes but create efficiency in transport of materials from any point in the system to the next step or final landfill destination.
Processing Even if solid waste processing infrastructure is built locally, alternative methods of transportation will have to be seriously considered in order to maintain the flow of waste materials out of the Middle Tennessee area to landfills for final disposal. Construction of additional processing facilities, focused on materials that can be sorted for use by manufacturers closer to the point of generation, would reduce the amount of landfilled waste, but the distance to a final resting place, for waste, has to be considered.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 58
Recruiting companies from around the country that have already perfected processing of construction and demolition materials would benefit the entire region. As these materials continue to fill up Class I landfill space, the overall cost of managing solid waste materials will rise, as well. Alternatives to landfilling C&D materials will bring new technologies to the area, create economic development opportunities, and potentially capture valuable outputs that can be used as energy or other resources. Additionally, working with state partners to imitate what other states have created in using shingles, tires, and glass in construction projects would divert these wastes to beneficial reuse and recycling.
Coordination Developing a regional Solid Waste Authority has the potential to address many of the needs identified in this report. Removing liability from local governments, creating an integrated system that all partners are actively involved in developing and operating, and allowing appointed representatives to guide the authority’s decision making can further support regional efforts to build and maintain a solid waste system that can benefit the GNRC district with long-term solutions.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 59
Section 9. Shortfalls and Recommendations
The following section identifies shortcomings in solid waste services and coordination across the region and offers opportunities where local governments might work together to take a more regional perspective on solid waste services.
9.1 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan In 2019, GNRC, in partnership with local solid waste professionals and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), led the development of Middle Tennessee’s first master plan to build support and capacity for multi-jurisdictional coordination on a range of issues related to solid waste management. This plan serves as a framework to guide the solid waste and materials management programming and policies across Middle Tennessee. Residential services are the focus of this plan since the State of Tennessee requires each county to provide residential collection of solid waste. Residential solid waste management is a government function. Management of waste materials and chosen level of service vary for commercial, industrial and institutional organizations, based on their specific mission. Solid waste collection typically represents an operating expense for the business community and is often served through private entities in the industry.
Challenges A survey of state and local leaders was carried out in 2018 to assess the needs and concerns related to solid waste management across the region. The feedback collected considered operations, revenue and expenses, level of service and the materials collected, and management of facilities. In addition to the survey responses, qualitative data was collected through conversations the Solid Waste Directors’ RoundTable, Middle Tennessee’s Mayors Caucus, and state agencies. The primary concerns identified are: • Capacity and lifespan of current landfills, • Practical limitations on meaningful recycling programs, • Rising costs of solid waste management and disposal, • Impact of growth and development on production of waste, • Maintaining a positive relationship with TDEC • Lack of coordination among neighboring communities, • Compliance with state and federal requirements, • Pollution associated with solid waste and its disposal, • Staffing capacity at local level to adequately address solid waste issues, and • Staff expertise at local level to adequately address solid waste issues.
Administration In addition to the list of concerns identified through our surveys to elected officials, industry professionals, and local solid waste management leaders, the most beneficial outcomes of a collaborative effort for managing solid waste included: • Help determining future solid waste facilities; • Meeting expectations of the public and businesses for recycling; • Technical assistance with developing local solid waste plans and reports; • Help reducing costs of waste disposal; • Support for a regular forum for regional coordination on solid waste issues; • Help developing and implementing a recycling program; GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 60
• Help identifying revenue to pay for solid waste management programs; and • Help marketing solid waste and recycling options.
Solid Waste Authorities operate as independent government entities and aid coordination between jurisdictions for actual implementation of integrated solid waste system programs. Authorities are advantageous for our intent to build a system to serve many different counties, based on logistics, needs and available resources. These authorities primarily operate as independent entities. The primary disadvantage voiced by the multiple players in solid waste operations, is the perception that control is lost in managing local residential services.
Funding and Financing The most fiscally transparent integrated solid waste management systems provide collection and disposal services at the lowest cost possible, ensure reliable continuous services, optimize their efforts to recover recyclable materials and take responsibility for protecting the environment. The cost of solid waste functions is often overshadowed because the expenses associated with each function are not apparent and services are bundled, which leads to the perception garbage is expensive and recycling is free. Residents are often unaware of the costs associated with solid waste functions because these expenses are funded through tax revenue, instead of fees identified and designated for services. The concept of unit pricing, pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) or save-as-you-throw (SAYT) are common tools for creating visible service costs so residents are aware of the expense associated with managing specific types of materials and can perceive the value of those services. Implementing this type of fee structure usually requires residents to purchase official garbage bags or tags identified for specific waste streams.
Recommendations The Middle Tennessee Solid Waste Master Plan presents a series of recommendations based on a combination of research and analysis of national and global trends, and an evaluation of best practices. These recommendations and proposed actions were unanimously endorsed by to Greater Nashville Regional Council’s Executive Board in June 2019. Furthermore, based on the needs identified in this report, the recommendations to enhance consumer experience through user-friendly tools and education, consistent effort toward reducing, reusing, and recycling throughout the district, and integrated solid waste systems planning and operations are still applicable for meeting many of the solid waste needs identified in the GNRC district. The non-binding recommendations provide guidance for a coalition of willing partners to improve the consumer experience, increase opportunities for local reduce, reuse, recycle initiatives, and promote integrated systems planning and operations.
Enhancing Consumer Experience • Clearinghouse: Establish an online centralized source of information for consumers across Middle Tennessee to find recycling and waste disposal locations, rules, fees, and rewards. • Public Education: Increase marketing and public education campaigns to inform residents of what, how, when, and where to recycle; make materials available for use by any participating jurisdiction. • Convenience: Enact agreements among local governments that allow residents to use the most convenient drop‐off facilities. • Household Hazardous Material. Expand the number of locations that allow household hazardous waste and pharmaceutical drug disposal. • Uniformity. Draft and implement a uniform set of guidelines and standards for the collection, recycling, and disposal of waste across cooperating Middle Tennessee communities.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 61
• Pricing Reforms. Encourage recycling or waste reduction through financial incentives or by reforming fee structures or billing practices so that costs are transparent and tiered or consumption based; explore enterprise fund accounting to support regional initiatives.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle • Set Targets. Convene community leadership and industry experts to set regional targets for reduction in landfilling and increases in recycling, waste to energy, and organics diversion. • Waste to Energy. Position the region as an early adopter of emerging technologies for waste to energy to reduce landfilling and to capitalize on the associated economic development opportunities. • Food and Organics. Establish programs aimed at reducing food waste generated by restaurants, schools, hospitals, stadiums and similar venues to ensure diversion to facilities managing anaerobic digestion and/or composting functions. • Construction and Demolition. Increase monitoring and establish programs to assist in ensuring C and D generated from residential remodeling and repairs are diverted from Class I landfills. • Local Materials Markets. Invest in regional processing facilities and infrastructure and build partnerships with local companies and governmental agencies that can incorporate glass, tires/rubber, and other hard‐to‐transport/store material into their manufacturing or construction projects. • Manufacturing Reforms. Work with industry, policymakers, and legislators to encourage or require manufacturing processes that reduce waste, especially through packaging, and that enable easier recycling.
Integrated Systems Planning and Operations • Regional Authority. Evaluate benefits, costs, and steps necessary for the creation of regional solid waste authority to include an assessment of ownership structure, governance, funding and financing, authority and duties, and accountability. • Cooperative Agreements. Identify short‐term opportunities for cooperative purchasing or shared‐use agreements among two or more communities in Middle Tennessee to gain additional buying power, expand markets, and reduce costs to individual jurisdictions. • Public‐Private Partnerships. Formalize public‐private partnerships to spread responsibility, liability, costs, and ownership in a way that maximizes strengths and encourages innovation. • Facility Siting. Develop a land use and market suitability model to evaluate and prioritize potential sites for future solid waste facilities and assess their impacts on neighboring property. • Triple‐Bottom Line. Incorporate life-cycle cost and triple bottom line analysis to account for economic, social, and environmental impact when evaluating the cost/benefits of proposed strategies or investments. • Ongoing Coordination. Continue to convene the Solid Waste Directors Roundtable to promote regional coordination and to guide and assist in the implementation of master plan recommendations. • Annual Reporting. Produce an annual “State of Solid Waste” report to the region to track progress towards master plan goals including rates of diversion and landfilling.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 62
Section 10. Meeting the Statewide Goal
10.1 Waste Reduction Trends
The Solid Waste Management Act of 1991 states that all regions must reduce the amount of waste going into Class I landfills by 25 percent. Amendments to the Act allow for consideration of economic growth, and a “qualitative” method in which the reduction rate is compared on a yearly basis with the amount of Class I disposal. Figure 10.1 - 13-County GNRC Region: Waste Diversion Trends (tons) Material 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Organics 10,406.70 8,023.15 21,751.92 21,264.33 166,712.92 Mulch 150,304.00 140,276.28 144,083.90 129,370.43 - Bio-Solids 1,597.50 2,060.04 17,325.88 17,967.78 33,670.75 HHW - .48 33.26 38.48 40.19 Industrial 89,794.00 48,172.46 7,910.90 8,738.00 21,335.10 Byproducts Alternate Daily 2,904.10 13,506.40 6,504.70 3,533.80 7,635.20 Cover C&D Debris 118.00 125.00 290.72 10.01 53,317.10 TOTAL 255,124.30 212,163.81 197,901.28 180,922.83 282,711.26
The annual reduction goal is calculated by TDEC. The 11 solid waste planning regions that operate within GNRC’s 13- county footprint have all met this goal over recent years.
10.2 Waste Reduction Considerations While it is important to strive for data to drive decision-making and planning for solid waste functions, there are significant limitations to available data. Based on inconsistencies in Annual Progress Reporting, defining each item in the report, training solid waste professionals to understand what the information is used for, and providing ongoing support for local efforts, can all be tools toward achieving the statewide goal of 25 percent diversion. Since county governments are required to provide residential collection services, it would be beneficial to revisit the goal, as well as the calculation so the actual diversion, based on residential waste volumes, are considered. Adding industrial, commercial, and institutional recycling totals is helpful in reaching the goal but there is no requirement for maintaining data, there is often only annual communication when gathering data for the report is important, and the success of a county’s recycling program may depend on the livelihood of local business, which the county solid waste operation may have very little, if any, control over. Addressing the opportunities for compost and recycling processing, as well as construction and demolition waste alternatives, with efforts led by public education, should go a long way in helping counties meet the statewide goal. Developing an integrated system, with support from state and private partners, while working to improve on data collection, and public education, can be a daunting task; but a necessity if Middle Tennessee is to plan and continue to effectively, efficiently and economically manage the solid waste system. Adding a surcharge to Class III/IV landfilled materials would increase state revenues, but also provide incentive for recycling these waste streams.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 63
Disposal of C&D materials in Class III/IV landfills have been calculated as diversion because the definition of diversion indicates materials diverted from Class I landfills are accounted for in the 25 percent diversion goal. Redefining the Class III/IV waste volumes as landfilled materials will not only result in more realistic calculations for diversion but will also encourage recycling of these materials.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | 64
Appendix A.
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | A-1
GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL | REGIONAL SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | JUN 2020 | A-2